Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNITED MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCHOOLS BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Labour Statistics

Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the most recent figures for male and female unemployment in the Ogmore constituency, Ogmore borough, Mid Glamorgan county areas and the total in Wales; and what were the equivalent figures in June 1979.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): On 8 June 1989, there were 1,981, 3,080, 14,919 and 68,021 unemployed males in the Ogmore constituency, Ogwr borough, the county of Mid Glamorgan and Wales respectively. The comparable figures for unemployed females were 626, 1,147, 4,727 and 24,783. Unadjusted figures for June 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made.

Mr. Powell: All Opposition Members will be grateful to the Secretary of State for finding time in his busy diary to answer Welsh questions. I am grateful for his comprehensive answer to my question. I am sure that many unemployed people in Wales will be shouting hallelujah because unemployment is coming down. Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that unemployment will come down to the figure that he and his Government inherited in 1979? Will he bear in mind the fact that many people who are now unemployed could he employed in the Health Service as doctors, nurses and auxiliary workers? If he were to consider the dews that Opposition Members would like to express to him in the Welsh Grand Committee—

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Powell: This is my last point, Mr. Speaker. Will the Secretary of State mark in his diary 19 July or 26 July for a debate on the Health Service?

Mr. Walker: I shall answer the parts of the hon. Gentleman's question that were in order and then, if Mr. Speaker permits me, I shall answer the points that were out of order. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted that in the first year that I had the privilege to be Secretary of State for Wales, unemployment in his constituency fell by 17·5 per cent. He will be even more delighted to know that last year it fell by 23·7 per cent. Such progress in reducing unemployment has never been seen in his constituency or in Wales.

Mr. Raffan: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his latest inward investment success and the major part that he played in bringing the Toyota engine plant to Shotton in the constituency of the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, who could never have brought it there had he tried. My right hon. Friend did so without costing the taxpayer a penny. How many jobs will be created by that project in the engine plant Itself and among local component manufacturers and service industries?

Mr. Walker: The Toyota engine plant is an important investment. In fairness to the hon. Member for Alyn and


Deeside (Mr. Jones), he was enthusiastic and delighted about the decision that the plant will be in his constituency. It presents enormous opportunities for component manufacturers and shows the world at large that north Wales can offer a good labour force, good communications and good facilities. As a result, I hope that there will be much more inward investment in the months ahead.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Secretary of State aware of the announcement in the past few minutes of the proposed closure of the Merthyr Vale pit at Aberfan? That is one of the worst acts of industrial vandalism perpetrated in the south Wales coalfield. Is he aware of the investments and developments that he has supported and the efforts that have been made to reach targets? I know that he made representations about the future of the colliery a few weeks ago. May I plead with him to intercede at the highest level with the chairman of British Coal to try to get the decision reconsidered?

Mr. Walker: I understand the real distress and anxiety of the hon. Gentleman at the announcement affecting his constituency. Like the hon. Gentleman, I heard of the announcement literally only half an hour ago because the meeting with the miners ended around lunchtime. He also knows that I conveyed the information with which he provided me to the chairman of British Coal and asked him to consider the representations carefully. I will have a look at the detail of the announcement and see what matters arise.

Mrs. Clwyd: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) in expressing concern about the closure of Merthyr Vale. Many people in my constituency who have lost their jobs in the coal industry not once or twice but three times, and they will be made redundant again by this announcement. Is the Secretary of State concerned by the recent report of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which shows that the Cynon valley ranks third in the country for the death rate among men? Is he aware that the Cynon valley has the highest male unemployment rate for Wales? Does he now accept the link between unemployment and ill health? What is he going to do about it?

Mr. Walker: I am sure that unemployment causes a range of health problems. However, in the Cynon valley, as in other parts of Wales many health problems are connected with the coal industry. It has been a major factor in ill health in a number of the valley regions, including the hon. Lady's constituency. There is a connection with employment and with unemployment.

Mr. Barry Jones: In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, I ask for urgent help regarding the grave closure faced by the community. Recognising the importance of the Welsh Development Agency to employment creation in Wales, may I ask the Secretary of State to explain why the two suspended officers of the west Wales office of the Welsh Development Agency were allowed to continue their plans for the management buy-out? Why were they allowed to believe that they had the support of the agency, with which they say they had six months of detailed discussions?

Mr. Walker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Welsh Development Agency has made clear its attitude to

the offer by the management of one part of the agency and that it has constantly rejected that proposal. As the hon. Gentleman knows, while I have had responsibility, I have increased massively the activities of the Welsh Development Agency. I am pleased to say that its budget for this year alone is more in cash terms than the total amount spent by the agency in the whole period of office of the previous Labour Government. The agency has an important and positive role to play and I am pleased to say that it turned down those proposals.

Education—Industry Links

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress being made to establish better links between schools, training and industry in Wales.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): A network of eight advisers, operating within local education authority boundaries, has now been appointed. They are actively encouraging all employers in their areas to participate in creating new or strengthening existing links with educational establishments and to contribute towards the prime objectives of providing work experience for all young persons before they leave school and business experience for teachers.

Mr. Jones: In view of the close relationship between economic and industrial development, and the special training needs of the work force, does the Minister now agree that the responsibility for education-industry links and special training in Wales should be transferred to the Welsh Office?

Mr. Roberts: We have anticipated the hon. Gentleman to a large extent, in that my right hon. Friend and the Welsh Office have a responsibility for training in Wales and work closely with the Training Agency. We are actively involved with the training advisory group in setting up training and enterprise councils.

Mr. Rogers: In examining the link between industry and training, will the Minister consider carefully some of the activities in the Polytechnic of Wales—an institution of which I am proud, having been chairman of the governors for eight years? With the publication of the National Audit Office report this weekend, will the Minister find out whether other senior people in the polytechnic have been involved in activities in which taxpayers' money may have been wasted?

Mr. Roberts: As a former chairman of the governors, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that responsibility for staffing lies with the local authority and that dealing with the two cases involved is and has been a matter for that local authority.

Welsh Development Agency

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if there are any plans under consideration for the privatisation of part or all of the functions of the Welsh Development Agency.

Mr. Peter Walker: The agency has constantly reviewed the scope for increasing private sector involvement in the range of its activities, in accordance with its statutory responsibilities and the policy guidelines laid down by the


Government. Accordingly, over the past year—as in previous years—it has sold assets worth some £12·5 million to private sector interests. It has also contracted out its legal, press and information services and it has announced an intention to seek the adoption of utility services by the statutory providers on a number of its estates.

Mr. Williams: May I express my anxiety about the circumstances surrounding the suspension of the two officers who have been removed from west Wales? Were not those two men guilty simply of jumping the gun and making public proposals that the agency is considering in a larger way? Will the Secretary of State confirm whether there have been detailed discussions between the WDA and Barclays de Zoete Wedd Ltd., the merchant bank arm of Barclays bank? There have been tremendous comings and goings during the past six months. Will he confirm that the agenda includes hiving off services, more private funding—with perhaps a 50–50 public-private structure—and possibly even outright privatisation?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. The proposals of the two officials were for a straight management buy-out of the services and assets operating in one region of the WDA. There are constant examinations with, I would guess, all sorts of advisers about gearing up the money coming into the WDA from the private sector. If successful proposals and suggestions were put forward, I expect that the hon. Gentleman would warmly welcome them.
The WDA is an important agency, carrying out enourmously important functions. If the main desire was to see that it was sold off to somebody quickly, there would not have been the enormous increase in activity that there has been during the past two years. The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong. If there are any ways in which we can bring more money into Wales by gearing up the activities of the WDA, I hope that hon. Members of all parties will welcome them.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not all too typical of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) that he is fussing about the structure and ownership of the organisation when what really matters are its functions and activities and that it should continue to attract industry to Wales and to promote industrial development within Wales?

Mr. Walker: During the next few years, the WDA is committed to firm programmes with a considerable dimension, including the biggest-ever derelict land clearance programmes, and the biggest-ever advanced factory building programmes, and we must not forget the range of services that it is providing at present. As I said in answer to an earlier question, in the coming year alone we shall be spending more money on the WDA than was spent during the previous Labour Government's entire period of office.

Mr. Coleman: I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the security of the Welsh Development Agency, but will he go a little further? On behalf of the Conservative party and Conservative Members, will he now recant their actions which, had they succeeded, would have prevented the setting up of the Welsh Development Agency, in which the right hon. Gentleman now takes so much pride and pleasure?

Mr. Walker: I have been the biggest user of the Welsh Development Agency of any Secretary of State since it was started, so the hon. Gentleman should enthusiastically support the manner in which I have given it a considerably expanding role and a new dynamism which never attained under the Labour Government.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is nothing wrong with employees of an organisation such as the WDA making suggestions about what could be better privatised? Such employees may be well placed to offer their employers advice on those matters. May I urge my right hon. Friend, if necessary, to continue to examine all such proposals on the basis of what is best for the achievement of the WDA's objectives and for the taxpayer who has to pay the bill, rather than following dogma for dogma's sake?

Mr. Walker: I knew nothing of those proposals until they were announced by the press. Officials of the WDA knew of them and had rejected them, and a number of my officials knew that the rejection had taken place. The proposals were firmly rejected at an early stage there was great surprise in the WDA and the Welsh Office that such proposals were eventually made.

Mr. Barry Jones: If the right hon. Gentleman did not know, he should have known. He has given us wriggling answers. Is it not the case that the two west Wales officials simply jumped the gun by making public a proposal that the WDA was examining in a wider way? Does that explain why the WDA finance director spent time with the privatised National Freight Corporation? Will the Secretary of State explain those matters?

Mr. Walker: The WDA is perfectly free to explore any ways of bringing more private capital into its activities. I see nothing wrong with that. I should be surprised if it was the Labour party view that the WDA should refuse gearing or additional investment for Wales on the grounds that it was tainted because it came from private enterprise. The only proposals for the WDA involve continuing its present activities. The proposals made by the two men to whom the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) referred had nothing to do with the sort of proposals that the WDA had been examining.

Milford Haven Business Plan

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the Welsh Development Agency to publish the Milford Haven business plan. and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: This is a matter for the WDA and the South Pembrokeshire and Preseli district councils which are jointly working to identify opportunities within Milford Haven for developing existing businesses and encouraging new ones. I am advised that they expect to launch their Milford Haven concept early in the autumn.

Mr. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the present problems affecting the west Wales office of the WDA will have no effect on the timing and announcement of the Milford Haven business initiative?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I can.

Mr. Barry Jones: On the west Wales WDA buy-out proposals and the questions that the Secretary of State did not answer, was a prestigious merchant bank—BZW—involved in drawing up plans for privatisation?

Mr. Walker: It may have been involved in drawing up plans to bring private participation into a range of WDA activities. I see nothing wrong with that.

Rail Services

Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss rail services in the Principality.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend is in frequent correspondence and discussion with senior staff of British Rail at regional and national level. He expects to meet the chairman again soon.

Mr. Anderson: In the light of the incompetence shown by the chairman and his senior staff in the current rail dispute, can we in Wales have any confidence that they will show the necessary dynamism or vision in respect of matters of great importance to Wales such as the electrification of lines and preparing for the Channel tunnel? If the Prime Minister does the dirty on the Secretary of State for Wales, can we expect him to apply for the job of chairman?

Mr. Roberts: I understand the hon. Gentleman's position as he is sponsored by the National Union of Railwaymen. However, he will be aware that the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen have accepted the 8·8 per cent. offer. I am sure that the House will come to its own conclusion about British Rail's conduct of its affairs. With regard to the Channel tunnel, the hon. Gentleman will know that British Rail has been conducting meetings throughout the land with a view to preparing a document, outlining its plans, for publication before the end of the year.

Mr. Win Griffiths: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Rail will he suggest sending a task force to France to see how the French are linking their railway system into the Channel tunnel and emphasise to him the need for direct rail links from south Wales to the main continental centres?

Mr. Roberts: I am sure that British Rail will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. We are well aware of the preparations on the other side of the Channel. However, preparations are being made in this country.

Mr. Raffan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern in north-east Wales, particularly among business men and industrialists, that the Welsh Dragon does not stop at Flint or Prestatyn, although it stops at Stafford, Lichfield and Nuneaton? Will he suggest to the chairman of British Rail that the Welsh Dragon either stops at more stations in north-east Wales or is renamed the English Unicorn?

Mr. Roberts: I am well aware that the train does not stop at Flint, but British Rail tells me that that is for a good reason—that very few passengers get on or off there.

Mr. Wigley: How can they get on or off if the trains do not stop there?

Mr. Geraint Howells: The Minister will be aware that there are two major railway stations in my constituency—Aberystwyth in Cardiganshire and Fishguard in north Pembrokeshire with its vital Irish connection. The next time the Minister meets the chairman of the board will he press him to spend more on those two stations to make sure that they can play a major part in the economy of Wales? Will the Minister write to me afterwards?

Mr. Roberts: These matters are among those that are discussed with British Rail. I am well aware of the position of those ports and their importance not only to the hon. Gentleman but to the whole economy of west Wales. I am also aware of their importance in trade with Ireland.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my hon. Friend have a word with the chairman of British Rail about the quality of service between Swansea, Milford Haven, Haverfordwest and the other stations in Pembrokeshire where we are forced to suffer 25-year-old diesel multiple units? They are filthy, hot in summer and cold in winter and do not have enough accommodation for passengers' luggage on this holiday line. Will he also tell the Opposition that their continued support for the National Union of Railwaymen against the passenger has meant that my constituents have been unable to keep hospital appointments in Swansea, Carmarthen and London on the days on which the railways are not operating?

Mr. Roberts: I can tell my hon. Friend that British Rail is investing at a record level—some £781 million in the current year—and that is due to increase over the next three years. I hope that some of the money may find its way into some of the services that are being criticised in Wales.

Mr. Michael: As the Minister previously acknowledged the success of initiatives by Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan county councils with British Rail in opening new stations and new services, does he recognise that the spending plans of the Government and the high inflation rate for which the Government are responsible imply a real cut this year of £104 million, or 20 per cent., in British Rail's external financing limits? Is that not the cause of most of the complaints that have been made by hon. Members? Does the Minister accept that this constraint and his refusal to put in more Welsh Office money is undermining the public interest? Will he offer more money to expand local services and reopen lines such as the Vale of Glamorgan line, with a spur to Cardiff Wales airport to benefit the whole region, as was argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith)?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is clearly not in touch with the Labour county council of south Glamorgan. It is entirely up to that council whether to make a proposal about the Vale of Glamorgan line.

Mr. Michael: Not true.

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman says "Not true." I defy the hon. Gentleman: the statement that I have just made is true.

Countryside Commission

Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the Countryside Commission; and what issues were discussed.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I spoke to the chairman of the Countryside Commission last week when we discussed the proposed merger of the commission and the Nature Conservancy Council in Wales which has been widely welcomed.

Dr. Thomas: May I widen that welcome? Of course, we welcome the fact that the Government have established an independent conservation body for Wales which the previous Labour Government failed to do. How does the Minister see the merger of the two bodies taking place? For example, is it the intention that the two existing advisory bodies should remain in place until the transition in 1991? Is it the intention that Professor Gareth Owen and Mr. Meurig Rees should remain as chairmen of the advisory bodies until 1991 to ensure a smooth transition? Will he ensure that the body will be a statutory agency that is entirely accountable to his Department?

Mr. Roberts: I certainly confirm the latter point. With regard to the first point, the hon. Gentleman will know that the progress of reorganisation requires legislation. Meanwhile, we shall consult the various bodies that are involved in this merger in Wales. At present we have two advisory committees and it is our intention to make them an executive body.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister recognise, however, that the welcome is not entirely unqualified, especially as the purpose of the merger is to ensure that there is no independent conservation voice on matters which will be within the remit of the new body in Wales? Can he give a guarantee that the body will be free from direct political control? As most conservation bodies have an international dimension, can he tell us whether the new body will be present at international conferences? If so, will the Welsh Office now he responsible for ratifying international conventions in so far as they apply to conservation issues in Wales?

Mr. Roberts: Issues that require to be addressed at United Kingdom national or at international level will continue to be the responsibility of the central bodies in England. I think that that is a wise move on our part. The single body that we shall have in Wales will be concerned with Welsh matters.

Marginal Land Farms

Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales why certain marginal land farms in Wales have been excluded from the latest less-favoured area status review.

Mr. Peter Walker: All those farms whose owners or occupiers put forward representations or appeals against exclusion from the LFA, after the 1984 extension, had their cases fully considered during the recent review. Some 974 farms satisfied the initial land quality tests and, of these, 500 satisfied the strict economic and demographic criteria laid down by the EC. A case to include those 500 farms in the LFA has been submitted to Brussels.

Mr. Livsey: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is extremely unfair that only half of the farms that were originally passed are now included—500 of them, in Dyfed, Clwyd, Gwynedd and Gwent—and that none of the 139 farms submitted for Powys is included at all? Does

he agree that that is a disgraceful situation which he and his Department should investigate immediately and put right?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. The Commission's proposals were that the basis of stocking rates should be one livestock unit per hectare. I decided to put forward proposals which go for a higher stocking rate than that as I believe that there was an argument for so doing. We have put forward all those cases which submitted not just one, but 1·2 livestock units per hectare. I am afraid that no application in Powys had a stocking rate of less than 1·57 livestock units per hectare. There is no way of negotiating that with the Commission under the present proposals. To do so would damage my negotiating position, which is to seek an extension of what the Commission proposed.

Mr. Flynn: Is the Secretary of State not concerned that these marginal lands and other lands in Wales may have been treated with the fungicides identified by the United States as causing an additional 100,000 cancer deaths? Is he aware that those fungicides will not be tested or examined in the Harpenden, Hertfordshire laboratory in Britain possibly for 10 years, because staffing there is 25 per cent. below strength? How much longer must we go on eating food treated with chemicals that have not been properly tested and which present a threat to our lives?

Mr. Walker: I hope that before this matter is properly examined the hon. Gentleman will not yet again create an enormous scare which may not be well founded. As his question has nothing to do with this application to the European Commission, I shall reply to him separately.

A55

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what economic effect will result from the completion of road improvements on the A55; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: Economic opportunities in north Wales will be greatly enhanced by the dualling of the A55, which will improve accessibility between north Wales, including Holyhead, the motorwork network and continental Europe. Journey times between Bangor and Chester will be reduced to around one hour.

Mr. Jack: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent answer, which shows clearly the Government's commitment to the development of the infrastructure of north Wales. Can he tell the House how much all the works will cost, when they will be completed and their effect on inward investment into north Wales?

Mr. Walker: We believe that the cost, at current terms, will be about £550 million. The work will be completed in the mid 1990s. The impact is already considerable. I believe, for example, that decisions such as that of Toyota to come to the area, and the substantial reductions in unemployment along the length of the A55 over the past two years have been influenced by that improved communication.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Bearing in mind the eulogy that the Secretary of State has been able to give about the benefits of the A55 to north Wales, will he adopt a similar strategic


approach to the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth route, so that mid-Wales and west Wales can gain the same strategic economic benefits?

Mr. Walker: I am delighted to say that the road improvements throughout the Principality including mid-Wales and west Wales, when one considers their use, density of traffic and population, show that Wales has done exceedingly well compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Second Severn Crossing

Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the proposed changes to the routes of the approach road to the second Severn crossing on the Welsh side.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: At the recent public exhibitions at Caldicot and Rogiet, 24 representations were recorded. Those and all other views will be carefully considered before a final decision is taken on the route.

Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals for changes to the route on both sides of the Bristol channel have been largely welcomed? Indeed, there is a general belief that the road should now go ahead as quickly as possible. Does my hon. Friend further agree that the one thing that might possibly hold it up would be any attempts to hold down the toll regime on either of the new bridge or of the old one to less than economic levels?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is well aware that the increase in toll charges is still subject to inquiry and decision, but certainly we are most anxious that the second Severn crossing should go ahead. We have expedited as far as we can the appointment of four consortia as full tenderers, and we hope that the successful tenderer will be announced around the end of the year.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Why did the Secretary of State conspire with Cardiff to have Newport removed from road signs on the M4 motorway? Does he appreciate the harm that has been done to the commercial interests of Newport, which has a more favourable geographical location on the eastern seaboard than Cardiff? Those signs had been there for 25 years—many years before Cardiff even had a motorway—so why were there no discussions with Gwent county council or Newport borough council before the signs were removed? Is this yet another example of open government, and what is the Minister doing to remedy the situation?

Mr. Roberts: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Newport is still very much on the map and is becoming more so as the Government continue in office and continue to bring more industry and new development to Newport. The hon. Gentleman is right that the directional sign for Newport has been removed at one point, but the reason for that was that when the sign was put up the M4 did not reach Cardiff. Hon. Members who represent Cardiff will agree that it is important that Cardiff should also be on the map.

Planning Appeals

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he gives to the wishes of the local community when considering appeals against planning

refusals by local planning authorities in Wales; and how many planning appeals he has upheld against authorities' decisions during the past 12 months.

Mr. Peter Walker: All representations made to the Department about the planning merits of an appeal are taken into account in arriving at my decisions. Out of 1,060 appeals decided during the past 12 months, 343 were allowed.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that when large-scale tourist projects are considered by local authorities they should be given the go-ahead only if the local community wants the project in that form, and that if there is a threat to the environment, the social fabric or the culture of the area, the project should not go ahead? Given the threat posed by some such projects, and the fact that when tourist projects occur it is important that they have the backing of the local community—which, after all, is supposed to welcome the people who come to its area—should not the final decision rest with the local authorities and not with the Welsh Office?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is really saying that there should be no rights of appeal on certain projects, but that would be a dangerous position to adopt. Many planning applications are made in Wales and in the rest of the country to which people in the immediate locality object, but to which a wider range of people do not object because of the job opportunities and the new activities created—indeed, they probably support such projects. So far, under all Governments, there has been a right of appeal, and that is perfectly correct. The figures that I have given show that out of 1,060 appeals, 343 were allowed, so the large bulk were rejected. To take away the right of appeal because a local authority has made a decision would be a mistake.

A55

Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many accidents there were on the A55 in Wales for the last year for which figures are available.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: One hundred and ninety three personal injury accidents were recorded in 1988 on the A55 trunk road in Wales.

Dr. Marek: Will the Minister admit that his penny-pinching policies in previous years regarding the construction of the A55 led to some of those accidents? In a spirit of co-operation with the opposition that is felt by everyone in north Wales, will he undertake to ensure that the dangerous right turns into oncoming traffic on the dual carriageway sections of that road are closed off and grade separated underpasses provided instead?

Mr. Roberts: All the improvements that we have carried out on the A55 have improved the accident rate. Currently the A55 is a mix of single and dual carriageways and its accident rate is equal to the national average. The total number of fatal and serious personal injury road accidents on the A55 has fallen in each of the past three years. We are, of course, always looking at ways in which to improve road safety.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Imperial War Museum

Mr. Mans: To ask the Minister for the Arts what improvements have been made to the Imperial War museum in the last 12 months.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): On 29 June I attended the opening by Her Majesty the Queen of a substantial redevelopment of the Imperial War museum's main building.
This impressive project has significantly increased the museum's gallery space and is an excellent example of the many imaginative developments both under way and in planning at the national museums and galleries.

Mr. Mans: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that that project is an excellent example of co-operation between the public and private sector? Will he take this opportunity to congratulate the staff and the director of the museum on the recent refurbishment work and the way in which they carried it out?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I certainly join him in congratulating the director and staff on a remarkable achievement. It is interesting to note that that redevelopment cost £16·7 million altogether. The Government contributed just over £12 million and the rest came from the private sector. The project is a fine example of joint funding by the public and the private sector.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: While welcoming the improvements in the Imperial War museum, will the right hon. Gentleman turn his attention to those other museums which, in the words of the Public Accounts Committee which took evidence on this matter in October last year, have faced
a major breakdown over many years in the proper stewardship of major national assets"?
Museums are a striking example of failure to deal with the problem of inflation as well as the problem of lack of repair work over many years. The problems that we are now facing at the Victoria and Albert museum and other major national institutions must be dealt with properly and can be dealt with only by the injection of substantial sums of money.

Mr. Luce: That is exactly why, over the four years beginning 1987–88, I took the decision to increase by 53 per cent. the amount of money available for building and maintenance. The money allocated for building and maintenance this year will amount to £48 million, rising to £55 million by 1991. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is three-year funding, but I have retained a certain flexibility in relation to building and maintenance so that in years two and three I can respond to the particular demands of particular institutions. I naturally attach great importance to the maintenance of such buildings.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Imperial War museum is bound by national agreements on pay and staffing levels and what effect that has upon that and other museums? Is it right to straitjacket museums in that way? Should they not make their own arrangements on pay and staffing levels as they see fit?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Since 1963, all the main national institutions have been linked to Civil Service pay and conditions, but some of the national institutions are looking for new ways in which to approach this problem and are coming forward with ideas. I believe that the main way forward must be more flexible pay arrangements for each institution. Museums are free to operate such a scheme under present arrangements and there is nothing to stop them moving forward in that direction.

Museums (Staff Costs)

Dr. Marek: To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the proportion of staff salary costs to total central Government grants in the national museums.

Mr. Luce: In 1988–89 the total salary costs of the Office of Arts and Libraries sponsored national museums and galleries represented 90 per cent. of annual Government grant-in-aid for running costs and 56 per cent. of the institutions' total grant-in-aid from the arts programme.

Dr. Marek: Is the Minister aware that the percentage is creeping up? For example, this year for the V and A 98 per cent. of the total grant is used for running costs. Will the Minister try to correct the problem not by cutting the number of museum staff or their salaries, but by ensuring that the funding for museums is put on a proper basis so that staff have a high morale and good salaries, and the pictures and exhibits are not at risk, as stated in the letter from the five chairmen of the national musuems which is on the Prime Minister's desk this afternoon?

Mr. Luce: Before responding to the hon. Gentleman's point, I must make it absolutely plain that the past few years have seen an unprecedented expansion and refurbishment of our national institutions—ranging from the Tate galleries to the Imperial War museum and the National Portrait gallery, which has extended its position in north Wales, to a range of other refurbishments which have been quite dramatic and unprecedented. The hon. Gentleman is right, of course—it is essential to ensure that the buildings are maintained in good condition. That is why since 1979 there has been a 50 per cent. increase in real terms in the amount of money for building and maintenance, and why I am putting extra money into that work in the present four-year period. I take my responsibility for the welfare of those institutions very seriously, and I take serious note of the views expressed by the chairmen and directors.

Mr. Jessel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that substantial increase in real terms since 1979 is highly important? Does he further agree that inflation is the one thing which threatens to erode the benefits of that increase? Does it not follow, therefore, that the museums—like everyone else—should support policies which bring down inflation?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend must be right. Inflation is, of course, the biggest threat to museums and galleries. That is why the Government's highest priority is to tackle inflation.
The issues that we are discussing arise from my request that all institutions should have corporate strategies, forecasting five to 10 years ahead what they need to remain


in good shape, and from their untying from the Property Services Agency, which has revealed certain additional requirements. Those issues have been revealed in the past few months and I shall take them on board.

Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister agree with the five chairmen of the national galleries and museums who, having prepared corporate plans as requested, have written to the Prime Minister today to say that unless the Government provide extra money before the next pay round in the autumn, galleries will close, exhibitions will be fewer, staff will be cut, opening hours will be shorter and works of art will be at risk? Does the Minister agree that the present situation is the result of 10 years of neglect by the Government of our museum world, as documented by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office, and in particular the result of a grant increase this year of only 2·5 per cent. when inflation is 8 per cent. and wage rises are 8 per cent. plus? Will the Minister go to the Chancellor and fight for more money for our national museums, or will he sit idly by and let them crumble?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman should be careful about suggesting that there have been cuts to the national museums and galleries over the past 10 years. If he makes such suggestions, I shall make comparisons with what happened under Labour Governments, which would not show his party in a healthy light. There has been a 25 per cent. increase in real terms in overall funding for our national institutions and a 50 per cent. increase for building and maintenance. That was our response to the urgent demands of the chairmen and directors of those institutions. As I said, the corporate strategies have now revealed further priorities. For example, officials at the Victoria and Albert museum have said that they require £100 million over 10 years. I have already earmarked a minimum of £25 million for the next three years. The gap between what the museum requires and what it is likely to receive from the Government is not very large.

Small Theatres

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to assist small theatres.

Mr. Luce: Through its funding of the Arts Council and the regional arts associations, the Government give substantial support to theatre in all its forms.

Mr. Bowis: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will agree that this week the theatres should not miss the opportunity to pay tribute to the great actor whom we have lost in the past few days, Lawrence Olivier. We shall greatly miss his stage presence, but the memory of his acting and production will, I suspect, never leave us. He had a great interest in theatre of all sizes, but not even Archie Rice would have appeared on the stages to which this question refers.
Small theatres are having enormous problems, as my right hon. Friend knows, because they are expected to meet the absurd requirements applying to cinemas, drinking clubs and large theatres. Some small theatres are having to close because of the 48-hour rule. Will my right hon. Friend talk to the Home Secretary to see whether that burden can be lifted?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the sad death of Lord Olivier and to his great achievements, and I should like to add my tribute. His

genius added new heights of achievement to British drama, and his contributions as a director of the Royal National theatre and the Chichester theatre led to great achievements for both institutions.
My hon. Friend has been in touch with me about small theatres and pub theatres and I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, especially about the licensing laws, which are principally a matter for him. It may help, however, if I explain that the Greater London Arts Association has invited the pub theatre network to put together the necessary information so that an approach can be made to the London boroughs so as to ensure that the law is operated as fairly and consistently as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Induction Course, Sunningdale

Mr. Allen: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received seeking the introduction of an induction course at Sunningdale for all new hon. Members after the next general election.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): Introductory briefing sessions about the Civil Service were held for hon. Members of all parties during 1988. The facility for briefing Members remains available at any time through the usual channels.

Mr. Allen: The briefings that took place were exceptionally good and I commend them to new Members who are elected next time. It is important that new Members find their way around. Novices and virgins in parliamentary procedure such as myself need all the assistance that we can get. That particularly applies to Conservative Members, who have to learn all the techniques of planted questions and planted supplementaries with which Opposition Members are unfamiliar. Does the Minister agree that it will be all the more important to hold an intensive induction course after the next election, when there will be more than 100 new Labour Members?

Mr. Luce: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman took advantage of that facility and thought it valuable. It is available not just for new Members but for any Member who feels at any time that he needs to know more about how the Civil Service operates and about the changes and reforms taking place.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when he arranged such a course for Labour Members after the last election, only three turned up? Does he feel that that was value for money for the taxpayer?

Mr. Luce: It might mean that Labour Members were pessimistic about their chances after the next election. Whatever the reason, the existence of such a facility is valuable, especially to new Members who knew little about the Civil Service, in helping to get rid of some preconceptions and teaching Members a little more about how it operates.

Government Information Officers

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he has received further representations from the Institution of Professional Civil Servants seeking talks about the code of ethics for Government information officers.

Mr. Luce: I have received no such representations from the Institution of Professional Civil Servants.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister be meeting Bill Brett on this subject?

Mr. Luce: I am happy to meet him if he would like to do so to discuss any matter to do with the Civil Service.

Child Care Facilities

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will encourage child care within the Civil Service to encourage recruitment and retention of staff.

Mr. Luce: Yes, I am already doing so. The Civil Service seeks to employ staff of the highest quality of both sexes and recognises the importance of providing good child care facilities if it is to recruit and retain such staff.

Mr. Mitchell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that the effects of the demographic trough of which we are all aware, which mean that in Nottinghamshire 30 per cent. fewer children will be leaving school by 1995, underline the importance of good-quality child care, of career breaks and of other ways of encouraging part-timers back to work?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the demographic changes. There will be a substantial fall in the number of 16 to 19-year-olds in the next five or six years. That means that we shall have to look more widely to recruit the most able people, to keep up the standards of the Civil Service. I hope that as a result of our equal opportunities policy we shall be able to recruit more women to the service. There are a number of schemes—self-financing holiday schemes, care-parent schemes, and value-for-money nurseries—being established. There is also the evolution of part-time work, job-sharing and flexible working opportunities, all of which should help to recruit more people, particularly women, in the next five or six years.

Mrs. Clwyd: As this country has one of the worst records in Europe on child care provision, why do the Government not put their money where their mouth is and enable local education authorities to make statutory provision for child care facilities?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Lady must put that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. My concern is with the provision in the Civil Service. We are providing facilities to enable us to recruit and retain the best and most competent people, including women. We have to grapple with that problem. We are providing an increasing range of facilities which should encourage able women to stay rather than leave, as well as encouraging more to join the service.

Civil Service Unions

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service unions; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Luce: I met members of the Council of Civil Service Unions on 27 June to discuss the future of the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. Barnes: Has there been any discussion about the freezing of the mileage allowance over the past two years, which seems a particularly mean-minded approach to the Civil Service? Have there been any consultations about shifting the Civil Service Commission to agency status, or is that, too, to be done without consultation? Should not the Government at least adopt a policy of no annihilation without consultation?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman's first question is principally for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have already announced on behalf of the Government that, except for high grades, more recruitment can be done by Government Departments and that a Government agency is to be established which can recruit on a competitive basis for all levels and grades within the service and for all Departments. I have already had discussions with trade union leaders about that. It will lead to an improved service and an even more effective way of recruiting the best people.

Dr. Marek: A few weeks ago, staff at passport offices had to take industrial action to make the point that the service provided by the Government was not properly staffed. The Prime Minister said that the civil servants could not care a damn. What is the Minister's view?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman knows that there has been an increase in the number of civil servants at the passport office. Incidentally, he should note that the passport office is a candidate to become a Government agency, where targets can be established to provide the best possible performance, including performance to the public. That is an important part of the reforms announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in February last year, which are designed to improve the service to the public.

European Community

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many persons in the Civil Service are engaged in the consideration of matters relating to the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Luce: All civil servants are alerted as necessary to the implications of the European Community for their work. Some are directly involved, others indirectly.

Mr. Taylor: As Britain seems to get a particularly rotten deal from the Common Market with the highest ever net contribution and trade deficit and as all member states except ourselves are blissfully ignoring decisions of the European Court, would it not be appropriate for some civil servants to watch the position to see whether Britain could get a relatively fairer deal rather than the present dreadful one?

Mr. Luce: To leave aside my hon. Friend's general remarks about the Community, it follows from what he


said that whether he is right or wrong it is essential that the civil servants who advise Ministers are well equipped to do so, knowledgeable about the Community and heavily involved in it. If we want British interests to be served properly, that is the right thing to do. That is why we provide a range of facilities, courses and assistance to civil servants.

Civil Service Unions

Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service unions; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Luce: I met members of the Council of Civil Service Unions on 27 June to discuss the future of the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. Fisher: What assurances did the Minister give the trade unions about the level of staffing at the new British library, and about the future level of staffing at our national galleries and museums?

Mr. Luce: I have not had discussions with the union leaders about the level of staffing at the British library, but hon. Gentlemen should note that the support for the British library from the taxpayers is substantial. We have committed no less than £400 million of taxpayers' money to the new British library, based at St. Pancras. The hon. Gentleman should welcome that warmly.

Civil Service (Establishment)

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants there are in his Department at the current time; how many there were on 3 May, 1979 and 1974, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Luce: There are 944 civil servants within the responsibility of the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service. Of these, 640 are employed in areas which have assumed, or are planning to assume, agency status.
As the office did not come into being until 1 October 1987, there are no previous comparative figures.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend give the overall number for the Civil Service? In so doing, will he note that there are far fewer civil servants now than there were 10 years ago, and will he join me in congratulating the reduced number of civil servants on a greatly improved output of work? Does this not show that we did not need a vast army of civil servants to run this country and never shall?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the size of the Civil Service, which has been reduced by 21 per cent. in the last decade. He is also right to draw attention to the fact that we now have not only a slimmed down Civil Service but a highly professional service, which does an outstanding job in advising the Government of the day.

Economic Summit (Paris)

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With Permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the economic summit held in Paris from 14 to 16 July, which I attended with my right hon. and Learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The texts of the various declarations issued at the summit have been placed in the Library of the House. As the main declaration recalls, the seven-year round of summits beginning in 1982 has been one of the longest periods of sustained growth since the second world war. These summits have permitted effective consultations and offered the opportunity to launch initiatives and to strengthen international co-operation.
This summit dealt with four main issues: economic matters, including Third world debt; the environment; drugs; and international relations.
The economic declaration reaffirms the sound economic policies which have brought greater prosperity to all our countries. It stresses our common commitment to bring down inflation. It underlines the need for further progress in reducing external imbalances. It emphasises the importance of structural reforms—that is, improving economic efficiency and getting rid of subsidies and restrictions.
The declaration also confirms our determination to fight protectionism in all its forms and to avoid any policies which would undermine the prospects for the successful completion of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations by the end of next year.
The declaration reaffirms the case-by-case approach to debt problems, and welcomes the recent decisions taken by the IMF and the World bank to encourage debt and debt service reduction for middle-income countries. It notes that the measures agreed at the last economic summit to help the poorest countries are being successfully implemented. It confirms that the most effective way to deal with the problems of the developing countries is through the existing international financial institutions, rather than by creating new bodies or structures.
The declaration gives particular weight to the problems of the global environment, and especially the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect. These are matters of deep and growing concern, because of the accumulating weight of scientific evidence.
The summit endorsed the United Kingdom's call for a United Nations framework convention on global climate change, similar to that which we already have for the ozone layer. It also underlined the need to make sure that our policies on environmental protection are both scientifically and economically sound. It pointed out that clear assessments of the costs, benefits, and resource implications of environmental protection help Governments to take the necessary decisions. There is no incompatibility between economic growth and environmental protection—indeed, the former is essential to create the wealth to finance measures to protect our environment.
The declaration calls for the strengthening of existing international bodies dealing with the environment, particularly the United Nations Environmental Programme, rather than the creation of new ones.
It also gives strong support to the international effort to preserve the world's tropical forests, while recognising the sensitivities and the sovereignty of the developing countries for whom these forests are an important natural resource.
The declaration signals the very strong determination of all seven Governments to tackle the drugs problem, which has reached such devastating proportions, particularly with the growing threat of crack. We agreed on a number of measures, in particular. The first was greater help for efforts to counter illegal production of drugs. The second was action to reduce demand for drugs; here, I was able to draw attention to the international conference which Britain will host next year on demand reduction for drugs and cocaine in particular. The third was the establishment of a financial action task force from summit countries and others to investigate, and recommend measures to prevent, money laundering. The fourth was the conclusion of further bilateral agreements for the tracing, freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking and crime. These problems can be solved only by growing international co-operation.
In our discussion of political and regional issues, and in particular of East-West relations, we agreed to provide practical support for political and economic reform in eastern Europe and especially in Poland and Hungary. We also agreed to help meet Poland's urgent need for food. For this purpose, we asked the European Commission to co-ordinate the necessary arrangements.
We issued a strong condemnation of repression in China. Our statement also underlined the common interest of all seven summit countries in a stable and prosperous future for Hong Kong; and confirmed the importance of support from the international community to maintain the confidence of Hong Kong's people, which has been badly shaken by recent events.
We issued a strong denunciation of terrorism, referring in particular to the Lockerbie disaster, and reaffirmed the policy of making no concessions to terrorists. We called on those holding hostages to release them immediately and unconditionally.
This was an exceptionally friendly and worthwhile summit—[Laughter.]—an exceptionally friendly and worthwhile summit. Much credit is due to the skilful chairmanship of President Mitterrand. The desire to work together to resolve the problems of the world economy, the environment and drugs was very marked, and the United Kingdom is making a major and positive contribution to this. I am sure that the results of the summit will be warmly welcomed in all the seven summit countries and more widely.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I thank the Prime Minister for her statement, and welcome especially the proposals for combined international action against the production, distribution of and trafficking of illegal drugs? Will the Prime Minister tell us what reply she would wish to make to Mr. Gorbachev's letter to the summit, which was rightly welcomed by President Bush as a
fascinating manifestation of the exciting changes under way in eastern Europe"?
On a matter which is not unrelated, does the Prime Minister agree that, while co-ordinated and urgent food aid to Poland is certainly necessary, both Poland and Hungary also need a considerable programme of technical and economic assistance to ensure that their steps towards


democracy are both protected and strengthened? What will be Britain's contribution to the European Community's co-ordinated effort in this respect?
In her statement, the Prime Minister reported the group of seven's reaffirmation in its economic declaration of what she described as
the common commitments to … reducing external imbalances
and
to bring down inflation.
As the result of the Government's policies is that Britain now has the largest proportionate current account deficit and the highest inflation rate of all G7 countries, was not the right hon. Lady's authority on these matters something less than convincing at the meeting in Paris?
When the Prime Minister commented in Paris that in countries where inflation had not risen, it was because sound policies had been rigidly adhered to, which country did she have in mind as having most clearly failed to pursue sound policies?
Does the Prime Minister accept that the Group of Seven's preference for allocating prime responsibility for dealing with Third-world debt problems to the private banking system will simply ensure that the problem remains a persistent drag on the world economy for many years to come—not only perpetuating poverty in the South of the world, but seriously impeding policies to protect the global environment? Before the next summit, will the Prime Minister come forward with proposals for action by Governments that will help to deal more speedily and effectively with the Third-world debt problem?
On the vital question of the global environment, to which the summit rightly paid so much attention, does the right hon. Lady agree that, while exhortation has its place, the highest priority must be given to effective action? With that in mind, why, under her Government, will expenditure on research into global warming this year be only one quarter of 1 per cent. of all research funded by the Government? Why are the resources that the Government subscribe to the intergovernmental panel on climatic change, referred to in the communiqué, simply money being reallocated from research into clean coal techniques?
The Prime Minister endorsed the section of the summit communique that condemned the indiscriminate use of oceans as dumping grounds for polluting waste. How does she explain the inconsistency between that position and the fact that Britain, is now the only country dumping sewage sludge into the North sea, with no plans to make changes?
The summit communiqué urges action on energy conservation. Why have the Government cut, and why do they intend further to cut, spending on energy efficiency? Why do the Government still propose to block the all-party amendment that would impose an obligation on the British electricity industry to give conservation and efficiency the highest priority?
The summit appeared to show full understanding of the need to assist Third-world countries in their efforts to protect the environment. How does the right hon. Lady justify the fact that, during her time in office, development aid as a proportion of gross domestic product has been cut in half? How does she excuse her enthusiastic support for International Monetary Fund regimes that require many countries to put compliance with imposed economic programmes far above environmental security?
I applaud the right hon. Lady for giving credit to what she called
the skilful chairmanship of President Mitterrand.
That quality of the president was exceeded only by the skill that he showed in making seating arrangements.

The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, he would do well to take some lessons in courtesy and skill from President Mitterrand. With regard to the more serious questions that he asked, I can tell him that Mr. Gorbachev's letter was sent to the president of the summit, President Mitterrand, and he will respond to it. We all have copies of the letter, which essentially calls for more interdependence in global economics—a call to which we shall gladly respond. As Mr. Gorbachev says, it will require perestroika to be satisfactory before the Soviet Union can play a full part in that global co-operation.
On the question of food aid for Poland, we first called for that at the Madrid summit, and the actions that Britain agreed to take were announced when General Jaruzelski was here. They consist of agreeing to reschedule the debt for 1989 due this year to the Paris Club without awaiting IMF reform. That is a considerable amount, and we have agreed to a five-year period of grace, after which the debt must start to be repaid. We also agreed to ask the European Community—and have done so—to get rid of some of the quotas on Poland's trade with the Community. If Poland is to pull out of its problems, it must be able to trade more with the Community. We further agreed to provide £5 million per year for five years for management training, and to send my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade to Poland, with a group of industrialists, to investigate joint ventures.
The rest of the improvement will come, as with other countries, after proper agreement is reached with the International Monetary Fund. We do not feel that it would be right to open more credits now. In the past, much credit was wasted and turned to debt that Poland must now repay. We want to be certain that there is a different economic reform programme before more aid is given.
The external imbalances refer mainly to Germany and Japan, which do not always open their markets to our goods as easily as we open our markets to theirs. They operate a number of artificial trade barriers that we do not have. Our membership of the Community helps to bring down Germany's artificial barriers by majority voting on some directives. That means that Germany must get rid of some of the barriers that it would otherwise gladly maintain. Germany also operates greater subsidies than we do, and the Community will bring those down too, to ensure fair competition.
Last year, under the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we agreed to write off the debts of the poorest sub-Saharan countries. We have now done that, and so has France. Before this year's summit, under Mr. Brady's proposal, we agreed to help countries with middle-income debt. As a result of those two measures, £20 billion-worth of dollars have been rescheduled in the Paris Club since we met in Toronto last year. Some of the debt was, of course, written off. Those were two very good initiatives.
Much of the debt is the responsibility of the commercial banks that lent it. Government may become involved to the extent that, if the loans turn into bad debts, or bad debts in part, a provision can be made against the banks' profits for tax purposes. By that combination, the


commercial banks meet part of the debt and the taxpayers meet another part. We think that such debts must be dealt with case by case. We met many Heads of Government at the summit, and some pointed out that countries which are conscientious and did not borrow more than they are able to repay would take it very hard if the debts of profligate countries were written off wholesale. That would make it very difficult for the Heads of State of conscientious countries to continue their wise policies.
On the subject of global climate change, this country has one of the world's four climate research stations, because we have some excellent meteorologists. Twenty per cent. more is spent in real terms on basic research now than when we first took office. How that money is spent is a matter for the Advisory Board for the Research Councils to decide, in dividing it between the various research councils. At present, there is not a great demand for more money to be spent in that respect, so we spend a great deal more on research in the Antarctic, which gives the first warning of global climate changes.
At the recent North sea conference, we agreed on a number of measures to reduce pollution. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the dumping of sewage sludge. According to the OECD, 84 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population is served by waste treatment plants, but the percentage is lower in Finland, France—where it is only 50 per cent.—and Spain—where it is only 29 per cent.—and elsewhere. Some countries are better than we are in that respect, but many are worse. Our country has sufficient growth and increasing prosperity to be able to spend far more on improving the situation than was ever the case under the last Labour Government.
The Electricity Bill will require electricity supply companies for the first time to provide their customers with guidance about efficient use of electricity: that will be a licence condition which the director general can enforce.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the amount spent on energy efficiency. It is interesting to note that he always equates efficiency with the amount of money spent. That is not correct. In 1986, Energy Efficiency Year, expenditure was heightened because of the awareness programmes that were launched. This year we are spending £15 million on energy efficiency—about six times as much as was spent in 1979. We are spending only about 0·32 per cent. of GNP on development aid, but our spending under the second heading—private flows to developed countries—is among the best, and well above target.
The right hon. Gentleman's last question—referring to economic reform being placed before the environment—suggests that he cannot have listened. A successful economy is essential if we are to be able to spend money on environmental protection. That is why the east European Communist countries, whose system he admires so much, are not able to spend money on it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House for brief questions. I shall give some priority to those who were unable to be called following the Prime Minister's last statement.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her clear statement that economic growth and a solution to environmental problems can go together is very much to be welcomed as a balanced appraisal, in contrast with the view expressed by others

that, if the environment is to be protected, economic growth must be stopped? Does she agree that there is a clear link between aid to Third-world countries and the environment—in the context of Brazil, for example—and can she tell us whether any progress has been made in that regard?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. The western countries are now prosperous enough to make special provision to ensure that the environment is protected—both its global and its local aspects—unlike some of the east European countries, which pour so much into the rivers that run into the German bight in the North sea.
We were particularly aware of the importance of keeping the tropical forests going and not allowing them to be cut down at the same rate. As my right hon. Friend knows, we have signed the first agreement with Brazil on the maintenance of tropical forests and research into how their ecologies can be maintained, the pharmaceuticals that can be obtained from the trees and their effect on climatic change. That is another first for Britain: we have led the way.
In the environmental statement, we expressed particular concern that the work should continue and that further measures should be sought to maintain the forests. We were very much aware that we must handle the matter carefully and keep in view the sovereignty sensitivities of the countries involved. We are doing this to try to help, and we can put some of our research and our aid in that direction. We have given a lead. We have also given an extra £40 million to India to help it to protect some of its tropical forests.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: May I congratulate the Prime Minister and other heads of the Group of Seven on placing the environment so high on their agenda? We must now hope that what was a collection of words will become a collection of effective actions.
On a different topic, I note that the Prime Minister said that the summit had
confirmed the importance of support from the international community to maintain the confidence of Hong Kong's people".
Will she tell us, in specific, practical terms, what that means and how it will benefit the people of Hong Kong?

The Prime Minister: I think that it will be obvious to the right hon. Gentleman that Hong Kong is a very prosperous centre, and that it must retain that prosperity. To do so it must also retain the confidence and support of the international community. I think that it is extremely good that, whether at a European or an economic summit, we all think sufficiently highly of Hong Kong, and are concerned enough about her to mention the matter in every communiqué. This one is no exception, and I hope that it will bring forth practical action. If we say that we are going to support Hong Kong and enable it to remain prosperous, it means that we are concerned to retain that prosperity.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recognition by the major economic powers of the singular importance of Hong Kong and the need to maintain its survival will be a substantial reassurance to the people of Hong Kong? Will she commit herself to trying to get the free nations of the world, particularly the European Economic Community and the


Commonwealth, to back her in her positive attempts to ensure the survival and protection of the colony for the future?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course, we know exactly how the people of Hong Kong feel after the events in China. Whatever international forum we are in—we shall raise the matter again in the Commonwealth forum in October—we seek the support of all nations for the problems of Hong Kong. The communiqué was very good, as it said:
We recognize that the continuing support of the international community will be an important element in the maintenance of confidence in Hong Kong.
We shall continue to seek further such support from the international community.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Prime Minister agree that, as a result of the economic summit and the one that preceded it, attempts by adults at organised happiness at these parties and binges always result in tears and recriminations because somebody turns up to spoil fun? Will she reveal to the House whether she intends to go to all the economic summits right up until the general election?

The Prime Minister: I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should so limit his question in time.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the principal imbalance in the economies of eastern Europe is between the excesses of Socialism and a lack of capitalism? Will she therefore take the greatest care before offering any further credit to Socialist countries, which inevitably dissipate it, until they reform their ways and follow the capitalist path, as Mr. Gorbachev is now tentatively suggesting? Secondly—[Hon. Members: "Briefly."]—I shall be perfectly brief when I can be heard above the noise opposite. Will my right hon. Friend say whether any progress was made on determination—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Tebbit.

Mr. Tebbit: I am not prepared to shout above the rabble, so I may take a long time. Was there any renewed determination to deal with the problems of agricultural subsidies, which are a principal cause of the risk of an outbreak of protectionism in the world?

The Prime Minister: I thank my right hon. Friend and agree with him that political freedom cannot persist unless it is backed by economic freedom, which means having the overwhelming majority of the property in the hands of people. It is interesting that the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man", contains a right to private property. Without that economic reform, and much more responsibility, initiative and personal effort political reform will not persist; nor will Communist countries achieve greater prosperity.
The Communist countries produce neither liberty nor prosperity. Now that they are achieving greater political liberty, we are not prepared to give them substantial assistance until they have agreed a programme of economic reform with the International Monetary Fund. Many of them may welcome that, as it is evident that they do not now how to set about producing economic reform

or free enterprise. Under the aegis of the IMF, they should have a very much better idea of that, and the World bank and other international institutions will then provide extra credit and grants to help them.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Molyneaux.

The Prime Minister: On my right hon. Friend's next point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Briefly."] The Leader of the Opposition asked about 10 questions and I answered them. My right hon. Friend asked but two, and they are far more perceptive than the 10.
Agricultural subsidies also have to come before the GATT in the Uruguay round. We started the process at the Toronto summit last year and have agreed again this year that agricultural subsidies must be brought down. The place to do that is between the three blocs within the summit nations Japan, the United States and Canada, and the Europeans—through the mechanism of the Uruguay round.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Does not the Prime Minister agree that aid to Poland and Hungary without too many strings attached could pave the way for the reunification of that wider European family, which would be very different from and wider than the Delors vision or nightmare of the European Community?

The Prime Minister: The aid to Poland and Hungary is by way of a special position there. They are the two countries in eastern Europe which are changing from their former totally centralised political control to something far more akin to democracy. In making the political change and in having much more political freedom, we wanted to help them to go further before the International Monetary Fund has come in and fully agred programmes of reform. As I have said, we are giving a certain amount of immediate aid for that.
In both cases, it involves negotiating with the European Community more exports from those two countries to the Community and dropping some of the quotas they have already. We have achieved that with Hungary through a fairly long negotiation and we shall achieve that with Poland. We shall, of course, always look carefully at the politics of the situation, but at present we feel, rightly, that every enlargement of liberty in those countries is to the advantage not only of the people there, but of mankind as a whole.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Would my right hon. Friend express warm congratulations to the French authorities on the combination of a highly successful festival—the 200th anniversary—and an extremely successful summit?

Mr. Tony Banks: What was it the anniversary of'?

Mr. Dykes: Does that not emphasise the fact that relations between Britain and France are extremely cordial, despite what the press has been saying, and does it not presage a good period of co-operation between the two countries for the EC presidency?

The Prime Minister: Yes, relations are good. The summit was very successful and augurs very well for the future. The European Community was there, with M. Delors, Mr. Christophersen and Mr. Andriessen, and it took a full part in all the discussions. There was more


agreement on that occasion than ever before, perhaps because we have been meeting for quite a long time and have come to know the right economic recipes. We do not need to dwell on them long and we can go on to other measures, including political co-operation.

Mr. Harry Ewing: When is the Prime Minister going to learn to behave herself when she goes to Paris? Is she aware that the press and television in this country gave us a good picture of her behaving like a party pooper? Does she understand that, when she conducts herself in that way, she damages the standing of this country abroad? When will she apologise to the people of France for her conduct towards them, and to the people of this country for damaging our standing in Europe?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is totally and utterly wrong, as he knows. I do not even recognise the expression that he uses, or know its meaning. We had a very dignified summit, with excellent discussions and excellent arguments coming to a very good communiqué. It is interesting that, when the seven summit countries and the whole of the European Community have had a good and constructive summit and are united, somehow the Opposition think that they know better.

Dame Jill Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a major problem of tackling drug abuse is the ease with which drug dealers can launder their profits through the banking system? As that matter was discussed at the summit, were any steps suggested to deal with that matter?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As she knows, a United Nations convention was signed in 1988, requiring all countries to make provisions in their criminal codes for those dealing in drugs; to trace where the assets went; and to include sentences for money laundering. We were ahead of that convention in our statute in 1986. We have also signed reciprocal agreements with other countries to trace assets. It is interesting to note that, since the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 came into effect, over £8 million of drug-related financial assets have been confiscated by the courts under that Act, with a similar amount under restraint. In addition, we are getting increased co-operation with other countries through the reciprocal agreement. That is our effort.
However, the summit countries still felt that we did not know enough about how the money was laundered and through what channels. Therefore, in addition to the United Nations convention, which most of the signatories have ratified and some are putting into effect, we are seeking the help of the international financial institutions to set up a task force to see whether we can find out more about the channels through which the money is laundered, because if we know more about it, we can stop it.

Mr. Eric S. Hefter: Would the right hon. Lady explain why she consistently comes here to talk such utter nonsense about the free market, as if all countries with a free market have political democracy? She must be aware of the fact, but we know that her history is not very good, so I shall try to explain to the right hon. Lady—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Heffer: —that throughout the world many Fascist and military dictatorships have totally accepted the free

market economy but, nevertheless, have no democracy. Therefore, should not the right hon. Lady begin to learn some history and to understand that, before the 1688 revolution in this country, we had the 1640 revolution, when we cut off a king's head and established Parliament as the basis of democracy in our country?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is going back on arguments that we used to have many years ago in the House. They can be summed up in this way. Every free country is a capitalist country—[Interruption.] Wait a moment, wait a moment. Capitalism is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of liberty, but every free country has to be a capitalist country. Of course, the free market operates within a framework of law. That is why we have rules to keep competition; it is why we have rules against monopoly; and why we have rules about health and safety. We have set up a framework of law, agreed in this House, and free enterprise is left to prosper to the benefit of a rate of growth and prosperity in this country that we never had when the Labour party was in power.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Does my right hon. Friend accept that everybody concerned with drug misuse will commend this Government's international lead m such matters? Will she reassure the House that, with the advent of crack and the horrors associated with it, this Government, from their economic strength, will make sufficient extra sums available to fight that battle, especially among the young in this country?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is absolutely vital to fight that battle. That drug has not hit this country to anything like the same extent as in the United States. We are taking action to try to see that it does not. We have called an international conference for next year—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced it some time ago—to warn young people about the approaches that they may receive and about the dangers of the drug. It is a conference on demand reduction. It addresses specific problems related to heroin, cocaine and its derivatives, marijuana and amphetamines, as well as methods of reducing demand, education, treatment and rehabilitation, law enforcement and the extent of the problem. We believe that we must tackle the problem at both ends. We must warn people and reduce the demand at this end and also stop the supply. We believe that we are most likely to stop the supply by stopping the money.

Mr. Alex Salmond: On the subject of energy efficiency, did the Prime Minister take the opportunity to explain to the other G7 leaders why the cuts in the United Kingdom's energy efficiency budget this year are such that the budget is only marginally greater than the funds devoted to refurbishing the Department. of Energy's new offices opposite Buckingham palace? Will we see a change in the spending priorities as a result of the summit?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman always thinks that energy efficiency is dependent upon the amount of propaganda which the Government put out. That is just not so. Since 1973, energy usage in the United Kingdom has fallen by 4 per cent., although we have had a 26 per cent. increase in gross domestic product. Also, for the last four years for which figures are available, the United Kingdom's ratio of energy use to GDP growth has been


improving at twice the Community average. Of course, the private sector is spending an enormous amount on improving energy efficiency. That is vital to keep costs down and that is where the improvement comes from.

Mr. David Sumberg: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, in the past, the economic summits have been derided as capitalist clubs. Now that Mr. Gorbachev wants to join, how long will it be before the Opposition recognise that only free-market capitalism effectively guarantees personal prosperity and personal freedom?

The Prime Minister: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is amazing, after our success in this country in freeing up the economy, with tax incentives and putting into private enterprise industries which should never have been in the hands of Government, how many other countries now wish to follow the same path—and that includes Communist countries—because they have seen the success of a Government who have had the courage to do the right thing.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I come back to the Prime Minister's style at the summit? Did she set out deliberately to be offensive to the French people with her ill-informed comments about the French revolution and the "Declaration of the Rights of Man"? Was she in any way surprised that she was abused on the streets of Paris, or did that make her feel at home?

The Prime Minister: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man" lists freedom of speech, opinion and expression? May I also remind him that President Mitterrand agreed with me at the end of the summit that there were other accounts of human rights which started long before the French revolution? May I remind him that is a matter of history that that is so? There were very few people on the streets of Paris who were against me—[Interruption.] Opposition Members were not there. The overwhelming majority were cheering and saying, "Madame Thatcher, Madame Thatcher!"

Mr. Derek Conway: Despite some of the cheap gibes from Opposition Members about the French celebrations, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister not be deflected from her determination to uphold Britain's interests as a world leader in tackling drugs, world debt and the environment—a position which will be opposed and gibed at by the mean-mouthed Members on the Opposition Benches?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we have taken the lead, as I have said, in getting the legislation through and in tracing the assets of those who traffick in drugs. We took the lead before the United Nations convention and we shall give the lead through the new international conference as we did with the ozone layer. My hon. Friend should not worry very much about the Opposition: I do not.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Prime Minister aware that last year there was a net outflow of capital from the poorest countries in the world to the richest? This year there will be an even greater net outflow of capital from the poorest to the richest countries. In that context, could she tell us what the Group of Seven

proposes to do to increase the living standards of people in the poorest countries, to protect their environment and to increase the real prices that they get for the commodities that they are forced to sell?

The Prime Minister: They are not forced to sell commodities—what nonsense. Those countries wish to grow more to sell, and they also wish to diversify. For that they must have an investment code, because people will not invest in those countries if they cannot get a reasonable return of profit or if their investment will be nationalised. More and more, those countries are realising that, and more and more private flows of capital and expertise will go to those countries, which will help them to build up their prosperity as we built up ours. One cannot build the strength of a country just by giving it constant grants. One must also see improvement in the whole economic programme at the same time.

Mr. Robin Squire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the summit reasserted the important role of nuclear power in energy generation? Does not this endorsement of the Government's current position stand in stark contrast to the muddled policies of the Opposition parties, which will be bad for energy generation and bad environmentally in terms of global warming?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course nuclear power is one of the very important ways to reduce global warming. The summit statement said:
We are committed to maintaining the highest safety standards for nuclear power plants and to strengthening international cooperation in safe operation of power plants and waste management, and we recognise that nuclear power also plays an important role in limiting output of greenhouse gases.
That was signed by all the countries which were represented.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Does not the Prime Minister realise that the 90 per cent. that she claims were cheering in the streets of Paris were cheering the 10 per cent. who were booing her? If a foreign statesman came to this country for a summit set to coincide with a great national celebration and gratuitously set about denigrating that national celebration, would she regard him as an influential and skilful diplomat or as a self-satisfied ignoramus?

The Prime Minister: I assure the hon. Gentle that he is incorrect about many people in the streets of Paris. I am very happy that he and his fellow Members are reduced to such pathetic, small-minded comments. That is just what the Opposition are like. They cannot criticise the results of the summit countries so they show their true small-mindedness. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: As for human rights, one was asked the simple question as to whether one believed that human rights started in 1789 with the French declaration of human rights. The simple answer in historical terms is no.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: The whole House should congratulate my right hon. Friend on her contribution to this excellent summit. May I also congratulate her on putting the drug issue at the top of the agenda? She spoke earlier about how to reduce the


demand for drugs and on laundering. Could she say what international steps should be taken to reduce the supply of drugs, especially in producer countries?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has lit upon what is perhaps the most difficult thing. We know where the drugs are grown and the extent to which they are grown. They are grown in sovereign countries and we are not able, except by exhortation or by getting at the money which those drugs fetch on the international market, to reduce the amount that is sold. Of course there are United Nations programmes for substitute crops, but they bring in but a small income compared to the amount that people get for drugs; it is difficult to get at the problem in that way. Therefore, we have decided that the best way to do it is to try to track down the money, to see if we can find out where it is being laundered so that we can confiscate it and stop the traffic by that means.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very heavy day ahead of us. I shall allow three more questions from each side, then we must move on.

Mr. David Winnick: Was it recognised, particularly by President Bush, that if the countries of eastern Europe are to be able to go their own way, which I certainly support, the same should apply equally to countries in central and south America? One thinks of what happened in Chile in 1973, and the United States involvement there. Could the Prime Minister simply answer this question—why is it that, of all those Heads of Government who went to the summit, she was the only one who considered it appropriate to denigrate the events of 1789 and to act in such an impertinent way when she was asked questions on French television?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member likes freedom of speech for himself but not for anyone else. I was asked a straight question—did I think that human rights began with 1789 in France? The honest answer can only be no. Surely the hon. Member is not saying yes.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my hon. Friend accept that she is entitled to some sympathy in having to attend events that commemorate bloodshed and terror which led to the suppression of freedom and to one of the worst tyrannies that Europe has ever known, by comparison with which what the Chinese Government did to their own citizens in Peking recently would appear trivial? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the assurances given by the economic nations to the people of Hong Kong are worth very much more than the Yeovil plan to allow 3·25 million people to have the right of residence here?

The Prime Minister: Tyranny does not vary very much from country to country where it is practised; that is what comes out of all the history books. With regard to Hong Kong, yes, we understand precisely the lack of confidence which people there feel because of events which have taken place in China, which is why we constantly raise the matter in every international forum. We have to try to bring back some confidence to the people of Hong Kong and to make sure that the agreement which we honourably entered into is honoured when it comes to 1997 so that the way of life of the people of Hong Kong can continue to be maintained. The best chance of that is for Hong Kong to

continue to be prosperous and to have its way of life as now, although we shall obviously increase the amount of democracy there. We have full international support for that. I hope that the financial institutions will continue to give their full international support to Hong Kong.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: In discussions on global warming, did anyone agree with the Prime Minister's rather eccentric view that nuclear power is the answer to the greenhouse effect, or was there a wider consensus that energy conservation, insulation and efficient use of energy are the answer?

The Prime Minister: Obviously, a great deal can be got from energy efficiency, as I have already said.
We are now producing a quarter more gross domestic product using less energy than we were in 1973. That shows the much greater efficiency we have now, and that efficiency has been stepped up in the past four years for which figures exist
With regard to nuclear energy, I said that paragraph. 4.1 of the communiqué—I will not read out the whole paragraph again—stated:
we recognize that nuclear power also plays an important role in limiting output of greenhouse gases".
We are not suggesting that we rely totally on nuclear power, but I doubt very much whether we shall be able to get the output of greenhouse gases down sufficiently without the use of nuclear power. Of course, France is the lead country in the proportion of electricity generated from nuclear power.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in coping with Third-world debt, the principle of fairness is extremely important? Should all Third-world countries that have an equal state of development not be treated equally, whatever the state of their external debt? I am thinking particularly of Chile, which has an excellent record of repayment and servicing of debt.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is aware of what has been done about the debts of the very poorest countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we agreed to write off their debts, because they were never going to have a chance to get out of their great difficulties. For the middle-income countries, we have the special Brady plan. Beyond that, much of the debt is, of course, debt from commercial banks and must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis between the commercial banks and the countries concerned. My hon. Friend is aware that some negotiations are going on at present. Otherwise, I agree that it must be on a basis of fairness. We should recall, too, those many countries which have borrowed not more than they could afford but smaller amounts, and have never failed to repay and service their debts on time.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The Prime Minister's views of the French revolution can perhaps be best summed up by saying that there is no vinism like chauvinism. In contrasting her ozone-friendly words with her pollution-infected deeds, can she tell the House whether this week she intends to provide some back-up action to those brave declarations by telling her Energy Secretary that he should accept the spirit of the cross-party amendment to bring in an obligation to consider energy efficiency and conservation on Thursday, when we will


consider the Lords amendments to the Electricity Bill? Or are we to assume that, when the Prime Minister says that she intends to fight for protectionism in all its forms, she includes environmental protectionism as well?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman looks at all the facts and figures, he will be aware that this country's record on environmental protection is better than it was under any previous Government and is going ahead fast—whether it is in taking out the sulphur dioxide from our coal, which is costing some £2 billion, in the vast amount of more than £1 billion that we are investing this year to provide better water supplies or in energy efficiency. The Electricity Bill will for the first time require electricity supply companies to provide guidance to their customers about the efficient use of electricity, which will be a licence condition that the director can enforce. The trouble with the Opposition is that they canot hold a candle to the excellent record of the Government, whether it be in economic growth or in providing environmental protection.

Mr. Keith Raffan: I join in welcoming the setting up of the financial action task force to attack the laundering of illicit profits from the drug trade. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the international conference on drugs next year will have as one of its main objectives a multilateral agreement to back up that task force, so as to ensure that the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 can be implemented even more effectively?

The Prime Minister: We shall do that. The conference is to reduce the demand for drugs. We are not waiting for an international conference to try to get more bilateral agreement so that we can trace the profits of the drug peddlers. That will continue to be the case.
The international task force is due to report to us in April 1990, so that we can consider its proposals in the next economic summit.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That the European Community Document No. 8337/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 10th July 1989 relating to the control of discharges of dangerous substances to water be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents &amp;c.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Football Spectators Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Committee

1. The proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall be brought to a conclusion at or before 1 p.m. on 27th July 1989, and the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on or before that day.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day, and on that day—

(a) the proceedings on consideration shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock; and
(b) the proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill not later than the third day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further Report so made whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20


stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or that Motion is made by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—
(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplememting the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—
(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Football Spectators Bill [Lords];
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

The House will be familiar with the aims of the Bill from our debate a few weeks ago. It has two major objectives—first, to provide the statutory framework for a national membership scheme for football spectators; and, secondly, to enable the courts to impose restriction orders on hooligans to prevent them from travelling to key matches abroad.

The Bill was introduced because powerful measures are needed to break the link between football and hooliganism. That was apparent when the decision to legislate was taken after the serious incidents at the European championships in 1988. It is still apparent now in the light of the events that spoiled the end of the 1988–89 football season—more than 100 arrests only a week after the Hillsborough tragedy and other serious incidents right up to the last weekend of the season when a pitch invasion at Crystal Palace resulted in 16 injuries, including a stabbing.

Against that background, it would be totally irresponsible for the Government to waste the progress that has been made on this Bill and to throw away, for another year, the opportunity to deal with hooliganism. That is why I am introducing this motion today, to ensure that there is proper consideration of the Bill, but also steady progress. We cannot neglect our responsibilities while serious incidents continue to disrupt matches, to drive potential spectators away and to harm the reputation of the game.

The tragic events at Hillsborough meant that we delayed consideration of the Bill. That was entirely seemly and proper. But acts of hooliganism and violence did not cease after Hillsborough and it would be totally irresponsible to go on delaying while we wait for further incidents to confirm the low regard in which English fans are held across Europe. The Government do not accept the


argument that the Bill should be postponed until we have seen the findings of the Taylor inquiry. We fully recognise the importance of this inquiry into safety matters and we have, at all stages, promised to look with care at its recommendations, particularly any that may be relevant to the setting up of the football membership scheme.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: If Lord Justice Taylor says that a football membership scheme such as is proposed would have contributed to the events at Hillsborough or even made them worse, will the Government abandon the scheme?

Mr. Wakeham: It is not helpful to have a hypothetical discussion of such matters. We shall have a proper debate on them when we have the report to consider. As I have already said, we have promised to look with care at the Taylor inquiry recommendations, particularly any that may be relevant to the setting up of the football membership scheme. However, as has been explained before, the Bill does not implement the national membershiip scheme. It provides an enabling framework within which the football membershp scheme will be set up. The Government recognise that the Taylor inquiry's findings may be relevant to the scheme and that Parliament will want to be aware of them before final decisions are taken. There is no question of the Government rushing through the scheme before those findings have been considered, but Government amendments have been tabled to the Bill to meet the concerns about safety matters.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: The Minister has just said that the Government have no intention of rushing the scheme through without the House being given a chance to consider the Taylor report. Should the final report of the Taylor inquiry not be published until December, does that mean that the Government are willing to hold back on the Bill until such time?

Mr. Wakeham: No. We are proceeding with the Bill. What we are talking about is its implementation, and we have given an undertaking that the national membership scheme will not be set up until we have had a chance to consider the Taylor report. That does not mean that we shall hold up the Bill.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am obliged to the Leader of the House for giving way, as this is an important matter. What he is now saying is that the House will have no opportunity to write into the Bill any conclusions that we draw as a result of the Taylor proposals. What he is saying is that the Football Membership Authority, or the Secretary of State acting under the powers in the Bill, will have that opportunity, but not this House. That is thoroughly objectionable.

Mr. Wakeham: The important point is that the House will have the opportunity to approve or to reject such proposals. There will be two opportunities for full parliamentary consideration of the scheme after the inquiry's report—one before the FMA is appointed and one after the scheme has been submitted to the Secretary of State for approval.
We cannot afford to lose, for another year, the chance to deal with these important matters, especially with the approach of the world cup in 1990. I have therefore tabled this motion. It is, of course, not a matter for me how time in Committee is allocated, but I think that I have allowed reasonable time, given that there is substantial agreement about part II of the Bill. Having said that, it is important that we get on. The Committee has still to discuss some important matters in part I, in particular the role that the licensing authority might play in safety issues. The House agreed to the instruction allowing safety matters to be considered and the relevant Government amendments were tabled on Thursday. Given the great concern about safety, I should have thought that everyone would be anxious to reach that part of the debate. Some progress has been made, but it has been rather erratic.

Mr. Keith Vaz: If the Leader of the House has had a chance to look at the Hansard reports of the Committee stage, he will note that, in respect of clauses 2 and 3, his ministerial colleagues have told the Committee and given undertakings that they will consider suggestions made by the Opposition. Does he agree that this occurred only because of the lengthy discussions which took place and the evidence produced by Opposition Members? Bearing in mind the fact that the spirit of the Bill should produce co-operation between Front-Bench Members and others to ensure that we solve the problem of hooliganism and put forward suggestions which will benefit football and that Ministers have said that they will consider suggestions, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that to allow us more time in Committee would permit more suggestions to come forward that would help to make the Bill a constructive vehicle which ensured that football progressed?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend the Minister of Sport said that he would consider a number of points raised, and certainly he will do so. The substance of my case is that there is plenty of time, both in the remaining Committee sessions and on Report, for answers to be given. There will be a Report stage and a Third reading and, in my judgment, that is adequate time.
After nine sittings over 37 hours the Committee has reached the first set of amendments to clause 5 of this 24-clause Bill. It is not even half time yet, which is not surprising since the first two sittings were largely repeats of the Second reading debate. I have already explained about the future opportunities to consider the Taylor recommendations, although it is difficult to understand why the Opposition are so keen to Implement a report that they have not seen, but not to push ahead with measures in line with the Popplewell report, which we have all had a chance to read and consider—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The measures are in line—[Interruption.] Keep calm.
The Popplewell report suggested that the clubs should consider a membership scheme. It was the clubs which said that they were not prepared to do so unless the scheme had statutory backing. Therefore, I stick to my point.
During the first two sittings of the Committee—

Mr. Frank Dobson: Is it not the case that in an interim report—not the final report—Popplewell said that he recommended that urgent consideration be given by football clubs to introducing a


membership system so as to exclude visiting fans? He recommended only consideration of a scheme, which is utterly different from the Government's recommendation.

Mr. Wakeham: Of course, the Popplewell scheme was not identical to the Government's. He was suggesting a voluntary scheme. It was the football clubs' failure to come up with one which led us to take action. These matters can and will be the subject of great debate. It does not mean that we need not get ahead and deal with these matters.
During the first two sittings of the Committee, the Opposition team was ruled offside on no fewer than 17 occasions and asked to remain within the scope of the debate. Events since then have made it difficult to know what to expect from the players in a team who seem unable to settle their team tactics from one sitting to the next.
On clause 1 there were 13 groups of Opposition amendments to consider, but after four of them were discussed, there was a change of heart. The remaining nine sets were withdrawn and the Committee went straight to the clause stand part debate. This encouraging progress continued on clause 2 where all the Opposition amendments were once more dropped. Clause 3 went to the other extreme, and a closure motion was needed to get on; and so it continues. I should like to think that, by introducing this motion, I am doing a favour to everyone on the Committee by focusing their minds on a reasonable timetable which will allow sensible and steady progress through the remaining stages of the Bill. Otherwise, I fear that we shall not be able to act in time for the 1994 world cup, let alone the 1990—

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Despite the long list that the Leader of the House read out and the fact that there have been more than 30 hours of debate, does he accept that the Government Whip moved the closure only once in all that time—so how could there have been filibustering?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is wrong: I gather that it was moved twice. I am not arguing that there has been filibustering. It has never been my case that there has been. My case is that we need a structured debate to achieve finality on this matter in a reasonable length of time.
As I am often reminded, I have introduced a number of timetable motions in my time as Leader of the House, so I have had the opportunity to explore the various philosophies on the use of the guillotine. I have often had cause to quote the distinguished expert on the subject, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who believes that guillotines are justified only towards the end of the Session to get Government measures through.
I have favoured an early introduction of timetable motions to allow proper time to be assigned to each part of the Bill. I have tended to rely on my judgment rather than on that of the right hon. Gentleman who, as he well knows, was the only Leader of the House since the war to lose a guillotine motion and to fail to pilot one of his guillotined Bills to Royal Assent. But on this occasion, the motion meets his test and mine, which convinces me that I am right to introduce it, and I look forward to his support.
The provisions of the motion are entirely adequate. Thirty-seven hours have already been spent on part I, which is the more contentious part of the legislation. This

timetable allows at least 30 more hours to consider the rest of the Bill, depending on when the Committee chooses to sit. After that, there will be a full day for Report and Third Reading, when proceedings on Third Reading can continue until midnight.
I stress again that this will not be the last opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of these measures. In all, I see this motion as a happy release for everyone. We can go off for the summer in the knowledge that we are well on the way to completing the necessary measures. For the first time, we shall have an effective way of keeping troublemakers out of football matches at home and abroad and to restore the reputation of the game. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Frank Dobson: There are three main reasons for today's guillotine motion to curtail debate on the Football Spectators Bill: first, the Government's business managers are no good at getting their legislation through the House; secondly, the Bill is a ludicrous measure; thirdly, the Government are so embarrassed by the way in which they are losing the argument that they want to bring debate to an end as soon as possible.
Let us look first at the record of the Government's business managers. In the first Session of this Parliament, we sat for 218 days, the fourth longest Session in history. The Government curtailed debate by use of the guillotine on no fewer than six Bills—the highest ever number of guillotines in one Session.
Despite all that, the Government got through only 49 Bills, the lowest total in the first Session of a Parliament in modern times. The average for a first Session is 70 Bills, and the record is 104. So far in this Session, the Government have introduced just 33 Bills which, if the final total, would be the lowest number in any Session not interrupted by a general election.
However, to get these 33 Bills through, the Government have had to limit debate by guillotining six of them. So almost one fifth of this year's business has had to be guillotined. Clearly, much of this low production results from the effectiveness of the Opposition. The only other explanation is the incompetence of Members on the Government Front Bench—in particular, the ineptitude of the Chief Whip and of the Leader of the House. That, presumably, is why, with a majority of 100 and having made so little progress, they feature so largely in all the rumours about a Cabinet reshuffle.
Let us examine the Bill itself. Despite objections from us, it was introduced first in the House of Lords. By custom, controversial measures are not first introduced in the Lords, but this one was. Surely that was not because their Lordships had any special experience of, knowledge of, or insight into what happens on the terraces or even in the stands of English and Welsh football grounds. In my time they have always been regarded as experts on "huntin', shootin' and fishin'"—certainly not on football.
Whatever the reason, it is a fact that the Bill introduced in the Lords related only to hooliganism at football matches and to no other problem. It recognised no danger to the safety of football spectators other than that posed by hooligans. Then came the Hillsborough disaster, at


which point even the Government had to acknowledge that other factors affected the safety of football spectators, so they deferred consideration of the Bill.
At that point, we suggested that the Government should withdraw the Bill and await the outcome of the judicial inquiry into the disaster. We suggested that, once the country had the benefit of Lord Justice Taylor's report, football authorities, the police and representatives of the supporters, together with the Government and the Opposition, should sit down to work out practical proposals designed to reduce hooliganism and to make it safer for men, women, children and old and handicapped people to watch football matches in comfort and security.
We offered to help to formulate such proposals and we promised that we would help the Government to get the necessary legislation on the statute book as soon as possible. The Government refused point blank—

Mr. David Sumberg: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the reverse of the question put to my right hon. Friend by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)? If the report from Lord Justice Taylor says that a football membership scheme would help to defeat the hooligan, will the Opposition withdraw their objection to it?

Mr. Dobson: We shall consider it—[Interruption.]—and so should the Government. We shall consider any proposition from the Taylor inquiry, but as the Government continually say that Mr. Justice Popplewell recommended this scheme, and he did not, we should need to examine closely anything that they claimed emanated from the Taylor report.
After what they considered a decent interval, the Government pushed the original Bill through the Lords. When it arrived before this House, it was still so exclusively concerned with hooligans that amendments designed to deal with other aspects of safety would have been out of order, so the Government had to introduce a special procedural motion to empower the Committee to deal with any aspect of crowd safety. The Committee cannot do that properly, because Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster finished taking evidence only last Friday.
Instead, we are told that the Bill will leave everything on crowd safety to the discretion of the Secretary of State. The Bill will enable him, after Lord Justice Taylor reports, to look at the recommendations of the judicial inquiry, and will give the power to him alone to accept, reject or vary its recommendations in any way he chooses. He will then propose regulations relating to crowd safety. Any regulations that he comes up with will not be capable of amendment by the House. We know his track record on regulations and on safety, because on Wednesday this week—

Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend mentioned the Secretary of State for the Environment. Has he had a chance to see the reply to my parliamentary question, in which I asked the Secretary of State to list the number of football matches that he had attended and the number of football grounds that he had visited over the past year? Is he aware that the Secretary of State has not visited a single football ground or attended a single match in the past year? Does he agree

that it would be appropriate not to proceed with the Bill until the right hon. Gentleman has had a chance to attend one?

Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman is more familiar with the Eton wall game than with Britain's national sport. On Wednesday, he is asking the House to approve no fewer than 15 sets of regulations under the Water Act 1989. That Act is the brainchild of the Secretary of State and he has drawn up the regulations. The House will have just three hours in which to debate 15 sets of regulations. That is less than a quarter of an hour per set. At least the context of those water regulations should have been partly covered in the debates on the Water Bill, but that will not be the case for any regulations made by the Secretary of State based on the recommendations of the Hillsborough inquiry which, if the guillotine motion is passed, will not have been considered in Committee at all. Less than a day will be provided to consider them on Report. They will be the product of those who introduced this barmy Bill in the first place.
If his record is anything to go by, the Secretary of State will be more concerned with the control of ordinary citizens than their safety. He was previously Secretary of State for Transport. London Regional Transport was enjoined by law to secure the efficiency, economy and safety of its operations. The Secretary of State decided to spell out his priorities for LRT in a letter. In his 823-word letter he talked only about efficiency and economy, and about cutting costs and staff. It was not that he did not put safety first; he did not put it anywhere. The word "safety" was not mentioned once in his letter.
His record shows that when it comes to the safety of ordinary people the Secretary of State literally does not give a damn. That is why any safety measures to be implemented following the Hillsborough inquiry cannot be left to him. Nor can they be left to any other Ministers or to any of his successors because, as we know, they are just as bad. After all, his successors permitted the installation of the death-trap ticket barriers on the tube. The recommendations of the Hillsborough inquiry must be discussed in detail and decided in the House. The guillotine motion will deny us the opportunity to do that.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): That is pathetic.

Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman says that that is pathetic. It was pathetic of him to pay no attention to the safety of people on London transport, and it is just as pathetic to introduce a Bill that pays no attention to the safety of football spectators.
All those objections to the guillotine relate to what is left out of the Bill. What it includes is just as ludicrous. The greatest victims of hooligans in football grounds have been the rest of the spectators. They have suffered from what the hooligans do. The Government do not propose to deal with the minority of troublemakers. The Bill is not targeted on them. It proposes to inflict a form of collective punishment on the innocent victims, the law-abiding spectators. It will impose extra costs on them and interfere with their right to watch a football match. It will impose on them the inconvenience of having to obtain an identity card. It will erode their civil liberties by requiring compulsory selective identity cards in a country which does not require such cards to be carried by any comparable group.
Against all those costs to spectators, what would be the benefits? Most people in football, most of those who go to football matches and most of the police believe that the proposals will not improve matters, but make them worse. Set against that wealth of experience, we have a Prime Minister whose direct knowledge of football grounds seems to have commenced at a Wembley cup final which she saw from the royal box, an old Etonian Secretary of State who does not even claim that, and a Minister for Sport who would do anything if he thought that it would help him keep his job, even volunteering to be a target at a clay pigeon shoot.
Those are the people who insist, for example, that women should be included in the scheme. There is no evidence that women have been involved in violence at football matches. What do the Government fear? Apparently, they are frightened that hooligans will dress up as women or girls. If Ministers lived in the real world they would know that the average heavily tattooed skinhead does not look right in a frock. These Ministers do not know that, because they do not live in the real world.

Mr. John Carlisle: Many thousands of football supporters will be upset that the hon. Gentleman thinks that they are all heavily tattooed skinheads. Is he aware that at Newport some 40 men went to the local Oxfam shop, bought clothes and dressed up as women in order to get into the game? As such, many were arrested. That could happen again if women were exempted from the scheme. That is the problem with the hon. Gentleman's proposal.

Mr. Dobson: In response to the hon. Gentleman, who spends as much time representing Johannesburg, South as Luton, North, I would say that not all football supporters are skinheads—and, for that matter, not all skinheads are hooligans. I was talking about hooligans who, in the fantasies of the Government Front Bench and apparently the hon. Gentleman, might dress up as women. We should not pay any attention to what he said.
The Government also insist on pensioners having identity cards. The consequence of that will be rotten. What about the grandad who has not been to many matches in recent years, but who reminisces about Stanley Matthews or Jackie Milburn or, going further back, Dixie Dean? One fine Saturday or perhaps a Boxing day his children or grandchildren may say to him, "Come on then, it's a nice day, we'll take you in the car. We'll be able to get a seat. They're playing Wolves. See how you rate this new lad Steve Bull." The old man will perk up but then they will say, "Oh no, you haven't got a flaming ID card. We won't be able to go." That is what will happen in the real world inhabited by football spectators but not by the Government.

Mr. David Martin: If we assume that we have a scheme where people have to put a card through a machine, surely the more exemptions there are, the more bunching there will be, so the less safe it will be to arrive at the gates. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that danger is the more likely one?

Mr. Dobson: All sorts of provisions could be made for various types of spectators. There could be separate turnstiles, children's enclosures and family enclosures. All sorts of practical, targeted measures can be taken to reduce

hooliganism so that non-hooligans who go to football matches feel safe. The whole preposterous scheme will not achieve that.
The final reason for the guillotine is the Government's embarrassment about losing all the arguments. They have lost the argument with the public, in the House of Lords and on Second Reading when my right hon. and hon. Friends, and, to be fair, some Conservative Members, ripped the Bill to shreds in a cracking series of speeches. The same has been happening in Committee. The Government have only one answer to the weight of the arguments—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) says, "Oh." On one occasion when I listened to the Committee he was talking about compulsory ID cards for pensioners. He said that pensioners would be encouraged to get involved with Bury football club by being forced to have an ID card. That is a peculiar form of encouragement.

Mr. Alistair Burt: It is to his disadvantage that the hon. Gentleman did not stay longer. My point was that the violence has discouraged several pensioners in Bury and elsewhere from going to the game. My point was that there are already safe enclosures which are advertised as such, and many people take out membership of them. I argued that that concept should be extended to the whole ground. In that way, the whole ground would be safe, and pensioners would benefit.

Mr. Dobson: Why is the answer to make it compulsory for pensioners to have ID cards? If the scheme, in dealing with people below pensionable age, results in the grounds being safe, pensioners will be safe wherever they go in those grounds. The hon. Gentleman's arguments are just preposterous. We have this guillotine because the Government have lost the argument and are using the crude weight of their majority.

Mr. Alan Meale: My hon. Friend may not have had time to read the Official Report of last Thursday's sitting, which shows the statistical evidence about people aged over 65 who committed offences in the last season. Only three cases could be found. The first involved a pensioner who was arrested while trying to steal a car outside Chelsea football ground; the second was an over-65 person found illegally selling hot dogs outside Norwich; the third was a very elderly gentleman arrested outside Southampton ground late one afternoon in an inebriated condition and pretending to be Father Christmas. Charges have not been brought against that man.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend, who so rightly and heartily speaks for Mansfield Town, has exposed the threadbare nature of the argument that pensioners should be forced to carry ID cards.
The Bill is like the Government: it ignores the things that it ought to do and fails to do the things that it claims to do. It is out of touch. It owes everything to the Prime Minister and nothing to common sense. Its only role is propaganda and publicity. It flies in the face of practical experience. It will create more problems that it resolves. It is not up to the job—it never has been and it never will be.

Mr. David Evans: The Opposition object to the motion on two grounds—that it has come too early in the Committee proceedings and that we should wait for Lord Justice Taylor to produce his report on the Hillsborough tragedy. I reject both grounds.
On the first ground, my argument is that the motion should have come earlier. In 1985, the Procedure Committee recommended timetabling of Bills. The automatic timetabling of contentious Bills would make good sense. Under present procedures, when a Bill gets bogged down in Committee or looks as though it will, a guillotine motion is introduced. That happens under all Governments. Precious time on the Floor of the House is wasted discussing the motion. The Opposition, of whichever party, criticise the motion and the Government of the day defend it. It is all a load of nonsense.
A rational timetable aids sensible debate and ensures that all parts of the Bill receive consideration. It does not rob the Opposition of any of their rights. As the Procedure Committee recognised in 1985, the power of delay is a myth. Attempts at obstruction reduce rather than enhance the likelihood of the Government making concessions. In the interests of more rational debate, I support the motion and I hope that we can look forward to the automatic timetabling of Bills in the future, thus avoiding the need for motions such as this.
As for the Opposition's contention that we should not rush proceedings but wait until Lord Justice Taylor's report is to hand, I take the contrary view. The Bill is an enabling Bill and deals with an issue that is different from that being considered by the Taylor inquiry. To wait for the Taylor report would confuse rather than clarify the issue. The Bill is about separating the true football fans from the cowards, the bullies, the hooligans, the criminals and others of that type. Safety at football grounds, and at all sporting stadiums, is an important issue which needs careful consideration, free from the controversy that surrounds the subject of hooliganism and membership card schemes.
Contrary to what opponents of the Bill may like to think, nothing has changed as a result of the awful tragedy at Hillsborough. Hooliganism was ruining our national game and dragging this country's name through the gutters of Europe before Hillsborough and, unfortunately, it has continued to do so unabated since then. The need for action to tackle the problem of hooliganism is as strong now as it has ever been. The events of the last two months of the season bear this out. In the Littlewoods cup final at Wembley, when Luton played Nottingham Forest, mounted police had to separate rival fans who were fighting outside the ground. There were 66 arrests and 65 were subsequently charged. Not one was a Luton fan. The scheme had worked there.
On 22 April, just one week after the tragedy at Hillsborough, 94 people were arrested and 28 were ejected from the ground during a match between Chelsea and Leeds United. Arrests took place before, during and after the game. Something similar happened at the game between West Ham and Millwall, during which 24 people were arrested and 24 were ejected. On 13 May, the last Saturday of the season, trouble throughout the country culminated in over more than 200 arrests and dozens of injuries. After a pitch invasion by Birmingham fans at Crystal Palace, 16 people ended up in hospital, the game

was held up for 26 minutes and 24 people were arrested. Some 200 Sheffield United fans went on the rampage in Weston-super-Mare after the team had lost to Bristol City, and 24 were arrested. Some 40 Leeds yobboes were arrested after fighting in a pub on their way back from a match with Shrewsbury. Chelsea fans celebrated promotion by causing thousands of pounds' worth of damage.

Mr. Wareing: Would the hon. Gentleman care to give the House the advantage of his experience and explain how 52 people from Luton in a coach coming back from a game with Ipswich Town managed to damage the coach, and spent some time in a local lock-up? Why did the Luton ID card scheme not prevent that from happening? The incident involved 52 arrests and was not the one mentioned by the Minister in a parliamentary answer.

Mr. Evans: Had the Government's scheme been in place, those 52—they were not members of Luton—would have been banned from football grounds for two years.
On 13 May, there was also trouble involving Plymouth, Bournemouth and Bristol Rovers fans—the latter were returning from Gigg lane, Bury—and on 27 May more than 150 were arrested after the England v. Scotland game at Hampden. Offences included a breach of the peace, spitting on shoppers, resisting arrest, fighting and swearing. One fan was charged with being in possession of a CS gas canister and discharging it into the crowd. This was all immediately after the Hillsborough disaster.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give a detailed list of the matches at which no people were arrested, or hardly anyone was arrested, or after which few were charged and no convictions followed? We need a full picture of what is happening. We cannot base our response on specific instances, although we want them to be dealt with.

Mr. Evans: I do not intend to go though all the matches at which there were no arrests. I am trying to explain to the House the seriousness of problems affecting the national game, and its possible demise if we are not careful. I am all for identifying the bullies and the hooligans, and stopping them attending football matches for two or three years afterwards, or perhaps for ever.
The Government are right to bring forward this enabling Bill, and it is right to proceed with it now and to try to get it on the statute book during this parliamentary session. Only then can we hope to salvage a dying game. Let us by all means address ourselves seriously to improving crowd safety when the Taylor report is published, but let us not confuse that with the need to do something now about the scourge of hooliganism. Once the Bill is passed and in place, it will be much easier to take action after considering any recommendations from the Taylor report. Let the Football Membership Authority, which will write the scheme, include them if it wishes. The guillotine motion is eminently reasonable, and I support it.

Mr. Michael Foot: The Leader of the House has said that I am an expert on guillotines. I can tell him that I am a greater expert on watching football. I have probably watched more away games than most hon. Members put together. First, in 1934, I watched my team—Plymouth Argyle—taking two points from Tottenham Hotspur at White Hart lane on Christmas day. I have been


watching away matches ever since, and I have seen some home games as well. I have had plenty of opportunity to see what really happens at away games.
I am bitterly opposed to the Bill because of the widespread injury that it will inflict on football, especially the small teams. There is not the slightest doubt that, if the proposed scheme is introduced, it will reduce the number of away supporters who attend matches, at least for a number of seasons. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) drew attention in Committee to the consequences. The numbers of casual supporters who decide on the afternoon that they will attend a match, or only a day or two before, will be seriously reduced. In addition, the paraphernalia of an identity card scheme will reduce numbers.
Many of the smaller teams, perhaps in the third and fourth divisions, will be driven out of business, but the Government seem not to give a damn that. What will happen in the towns and other places where young people have been reared to give allegiance to their clubs? It is a proper pursuit that many of us have followed over many years. In the places where clubs are knocked out, the increase in hooliganism will be incalculable. The Government do not understand the cause of the hooliganism that has increased so rapidly during their period of office. If clubs throughout the country are caused to close, the chances of many young people to attach themselves to a club and see it prosper will be swept away by a Government who do not give a damn what happens in football and have never taken the trouble to find out.
Anyone who examined the facts could see what was likely to happen outside football grounds. By pursuing the Bill, the Government will add to all the problems of bitterness, rows and arrests. Many more Hillsboroughs could be provoked by the scheme. That is the view of many police forces, but the Government do take no notice of what the police say on these matters. They are apparently not interested in what the police have to do outside the grounds. The risks and dangers will be enormously increased by the Bill. In effect, the Government are saying, "We are not even going to listen; notwithstanding what happened outside the ground at Hillsborough, we intend to go ahead with the scheme." There will be a far greater risk of roughhouses outside grounds. It is scandalous for the Government to proceed in such a way.

Mr. John Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman has said, in effect, that the police have forecast trouble. I trust that he will acknowledge that the police were members of the original working party and that they have had a major input in the discussions on the proposed scheme. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman made some serious remarks about the Hillsborough disaster. I put it to him with all due respect that it is dangerous to allege that Hillsborough could happen again as a result of the introduction of the membership scheme. If a membership scheme had been in existence at Hillsborough, the police might have had a better facility by means of a filtering process to prevent many people from getting to the ground. First, they could have ensured that people had tickets. Secondly, they could have ensured that individuals had membership cards. In those circumstances, the police might have been able to prevent some of the trouble by ensuring that those without tickets did not get to the ground.

Mr. Foot: That was not a proper intervention. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a speech, let him make one. I shall reply, however, to the issues that he has raised. It cannot be denied that the police have been opposed to the scheme from the beginning. The Government have used every method available to them to try to persuade the police to produce different evidence. Anyone who has studied the facts knows that when the Government first came forward with their cock-eyed scheme the football clubs were against it. Only a few supported it. I understand that Luton, for example, has a scheme designed to stop away supporters from attending matches. That is a scandalous interference with the individual's right to watch a football match. If such a scheme were applied throughout the country, football would be wrecked. What is football but a contest between two sides at which supporters can express their support from both sides? The Luton scheme would wreck British football, but the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) apparently supports it.
As I have said, the police were against the proposed membership scheme from the beginning, and I am sure that that is still their position. I am sure that, whatever differences of view emerge as a result of the evidence given about the Hillsborough disaster, the police will still be against the scheme, but the Government are not prepared to take any notice of that. I shall consider it an amazing event if the Taylor report comes out in favour of the scheme. Of course, it would be a great victory for the Government. If the Government do not bring pressure to bear on Lord Justice Taylor—I am sure that he would be able to resist it if they did—there is an overwhelming certainty that the report will only add to the arguments that those who know about football have advanced from the beginning. In other words, the Taylor report will fortify the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath and many others.
The Government are wasting a great deal of parliamentary time. There may be a few obscure recommendations in the Taylor report which will be used by the Government to support their argument. I believe that the report will be written clearly and will not support the Government, but if the report blurs the issue, w hat will happen? It is monstrous for the Government to say that they will wait until the Taylor report is produced, consider what it recommends and then bring forward proposals which cannot be altered by amendment in the House. The Leader of the House should be in his place to respond to this. The Minister for Sport merely takes the orders of the Prime Minister. The Bill is clearly the Prime Minister's responsibility. If the Government had a real leader of the House, a real Minister for Sport and a real Cabinet, the Bill would never have been presented to the House. Unfortunately, Cabinet members are afraid to oppose the Prime Minister and simply agree with virtually everything she says.
That attitude should have changed over the past few months. The Prime Minister's authority has been greatly weakened following the elections. The atmosphere in the Cabinet, in Parliament and throughout the country is changing. Secondary Ministers who might have some interest in their future careers should have plucked up the courage to tell the Prime Minister that it is nonsense that a measure such as this Bill should be proceeding through the House. It is shameful that the Minister for Sport supports the Bill, and it is even more shameful that


members of the Cabinet—many of whom will probably be shunted into other jobs when our discussions on the Bill come to an end in a few weeks' time—have lent their support to it.
The Minister for Sport has never been able to persuade the football authorities, the police or anyone else that the Bill has merit. One of the reasons for that is that, when he meets the clubs and others, he spends far too much time talking and scarcely listens to anything that others have to say. That applies even more to the Prime Minister. It would be best if we could finish off the Bill here and now, but if we cannot, let it be finished off soon. The Minister for Sport will go into obscurity as the Minister who tried to ram through a measure that will do nothing but injury to the greatest of British sports.

Mr. David Sumberg: I follow the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) with some reluctance, not least because his reputation as a parliamentary speaker has no equal, but also because his knowledge of the guillotine probably makes him the world's greatest expert on it.
I support the motion because of the experience of my membership of the Standing Committee. At times I felt isolated and lonely because at every juncture when hon. Members on both sides felt obliged to speak, they prefaced their remarks by expressing their love, devotion, commitment and knowledge of the game of association football. After a time, I began to think that that commitment was a condition of membership of the House. Hon. Members combined that commitment with pointing an accusing finger at the guilty men—those who, especially in the eyes of the Opposition, know nothing about football.
I must make it clear that although I have attended the occasional match, I am not the world's greatest expert on football. I make no apology for that, for three main reasons. First, since coming to the House it has been my experience that lack of knowledge has never prevented hon. Members from making speeches either in this Chamber or in Committee. Secondly, in view of the state of association football, the declining gates, the conditions of the grounds and the way in which the game is perceived both here and abroad, I realise that those responsible for all that are people who know about the game. Perhaps it is time for those who do not know very much to have their say—

Mr. Denis Howell: If the football authorities are responsible for the malaise of the game, why are the Government proposing to put them in charge of the Football Membership Authority which will regulate this ludicrous Bill?

Mr. Sumberg: They are being involved simply because of force majeure. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that in Committee my hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that he is prepared to consider the involvement of other people and other bodies in the football membership scheme. I hope that he will do so.
Thirdly, I make no apology for supporting the motion because it gives me an opportunity to speak for the

forgotten majority—not the majority of decent, honourable, peaceful football supporters, because powerful and influential voices already speak for them, but for the vast majority of the population who never go to a football match, and never want to go to one, but who foot the bill for the behaviour of the mindless few who create all the mayhem at football games. If it can be argued, as I believe it can, that law-abiding football supporters have had a raw deal from football, it can be argued that the millions of people who never go to the game have had an even greater raw deal.

Mr. Meale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that about 32 million people in Britain support one sport or another? Is he further aware that hooliganism occurs across the whole spectrum of sport, including rowing, rugby union and cricket, to almost the same degree as in football? Why does he not argue that a similar scheme should be introduced for every sport?

Mr. Sumberg: I sometimes wonder what Labour Members do and where they have been. Of course there are outbreaks of violence at most sports, but the predominant problem is with the game of football. If the Opposition do not recognise that, we shall not make much progress. Every Saturday throughout the season, our cities and towns become almost semi-military encampments with masses of police patrolling the streets. The ordinary people have to think about changing their plans as they face the fact that there may be violence against themselves or their property. Above all, the cost of providing protection for them and their property falls on the ratepayers and taxpayers. They are entitled to be heard in this House.
Without the guillotine, the behaviour of some Opposition Members will continue unabated. There will be yet more hypnotic law lectures from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz); we will hear yet again the same stories from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) about his wartime RAF experiences and his distinguished service for the Crown on the railway stations of Britain; we will hear again about the wonderful moment in the career of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) when he discovered, or so he thought, the fatal flaw in the Luton Town membership scheme. We have heard those stories time and again. Indeed, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) retold, even today, the story of three old-age pensioners who apparently were arrested outside a football ground. Having heard those stories many times, I have a great deal of sympathy for Members' wives and husbands who have to listen to the old jokes and stories and smile politely each time we tell them at every meeting that we attend.
Another theme that came out in Committee is worthy of mention—the class war. Conservative Members thought that in the modern, chic, radical, cordless-telephone Labour party, the class war was dead and gone. I have news for the House—it is alive and kicking in Committee. "This is a working-class game," runs the Opposition argument, "and we do not want it interfered with by the public-school twits on the Conservative Benches." If it is a working-class game, the working classes have had a pretty raw deal from it. They stand on awful terraces supporting clubs that will spend £1 million on a player but not a penny on their grounds. They watch their


favourite clubs being bought and sold in boardroom coups over which they have no control. They suffer violent attacks from the mindless hooligan minority.

Mr. Jim Lester: Although my hon. Friend may be right to suggest that some clubs do not do their best by their supporters, no one is compelled to attend a football match or to endure such conditions if he chooses not to do so. The only element of compulsion entering football is the introduction of the Bill, whereby one is not allowed to watch a football match unless one becomes a member under the Football Membership Authority scheme.

Mr. Sumberg: My hon. Friend's point goes to the fundamental principle of the Bill, but I happen to believe that it is not the greatest infringement of civil liberties to compel a person to hold a membership card to prevent the sort of behaviour to which I referred.
The party of the working class may think that the conditions that I mentioned are good enough for the working class, but we do not. Such conditions are not good enough for the working, middle, upper or any other class. That is why the Government mean to do something about them.
At the start of my remarks, I freely confessed to knowing little about association football—but because many of my constituents are interested in football, I thought that I should know more about it. I accepted an invitation from the chairman of Manchester United, Martin Edwards, whom I know, to visit that club's ground, together with one or two Opposition Members, to watch a match. During the interval, I met another guest, who was Asian. He told me that he was a keen football fan but did not regularly attend matches. I asked him why not. He answered, "Mr. Sumberg, if the colour of your skin was the same as mine, you would not go to football matches either. At best, you would receive taunts and jeers—at worst, a brick or bottle on the back of your head."

Mr. Vaz: That is nonsense. Absolute rubbish.

Mr. Sumberg: That is an appalling indictment of' the game. If the Government fail to do anything, it will be an appalling indictment of them. I do not pretend that the Bill is the whole answer to football violence, but it can play a vital part. It is time that football had a better deal, and time that the Bill became law.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Such is the nature of the Government's majority in the House that I harbour no doubt that the motion will pass at the due moment. When it does, that will be eloquent testimony to the Government's obduracy and intransigence, because there is no need for the motion. To go beyond that, there are very good reasons why it should not pass.
Those right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in the Committee stage have known since it began that the passage of the legislation is much more important to the Government than its intrinsic merit. That belief is based on an ill-concealed, blind and insensitive determination on the Government's part to drive the legislation through. The less time the Bill spends in Committee, the less time there will be for the scrutiny which is required—and which would make it obvious that

the Government have created expectations that they are unable to satisfy. The more detailed the examination. the more flawed the Bill has appeared.
The guillotine is not being introduced as an expression of the Government's frustration: it is provoked by their realisation of the extent to which the Bill exposes them to political and intellectual embarrassment. The guillotine is not justified by the nature of the legislation. Such legislation should in any case be non-partisan and ought to command the support of right hon and hon. Members in all parts of the House. Notwithstanding that, however, the Government are determined to press ahead.
The guillotine is also not justified by the views of many right hon. and hon. Members who, while they oppose the legislation, are as determined as any Conservative Member to find a solution to the problem of football hooliganism and to ensure, so far as they can, the speedy return of English clubs to continental competitions. Neither is the guillotine justified by the parallel inquiry of Lord Justice Taylor, whose preliminary report may be available by the end of this month. Instead, the guillotine will prevent the Standing Committee appointed by the House to consider the Bill from examining Lord Justice Taylor's proposals. That is why many right hon. and hon. Members find the introduction of the guillotine at this stage so objectionable.
In Committee, the mask has slipped on occasions—usually in the absence of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones)—and reasonableness has made a brief appearance. From time to time, the Minister for Sport has conveyed a properly constructive attitude to matters brought to his attention in the context of safety. That is hardly surprising, because in the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), the Committee has two Members who were present on the occasion of the Hillsborough disaster, and who bring to the Committee's work not only considerable experience of and a deep love for football but an appreciation of at least some of the conditions which gave rise to that most tragic occurrence. That spirit of constructiveness could have been more effectively utilised if the Government had been willing to exercise greater sensitivity towards Opposition Members who, while opposed to the principle of the Bill, are none the less determined to ensure that the eventual legislation is the best possible.
If we must have a Bill, it should be the best Bill possible. That requires proper scrutiny of the terms of the legislation and adequate time for that scrutiny. If we must have a Bill, it should be based on the best available information—which requires consideration at least of Lord Justice Taylor's interim report. The guillotine will allow neither. For that reason, it ought to be opposed.

Mr. Alistair Burt: I follow the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) in his reminiscences, and I am pleased to be the first Conservative Member to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg). As the House may know, we share the same metropolitan borough and often find that we have both parallel and tandem interests. My hon. Friend confessed that he was speaking for a group of people who are not football supporters and who attend few matches, but who have a legitimate interest in


the outcome of the Bill. I speak for a different group of people again—for those who were football supporters but who are no longer.
My credentials follow more those of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent than those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South. I spent my formative years as a football supporter following a small town club. I refer to my local team, Bury. My father has been a season ticket holder at that club for 40 years, which is a triumph of hope over experience. The club had occasional cup triumphs, with victories over West Bromwich Albion and over Middlesbrough, when they were a force in the first division. They have had good cup runs, poor seasons and good seasons, but Bury has always been a friendly club and I am grateful for the support and friendship that I have enjoyed from its chairman and directors—

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the debate should concern itself with the question of whether or not there is a need for a guillotine. It is not another Second Reading, or an opportunity to reminisce.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), but he has said nothing out of order. It is in order for a debate on a timetable motion to be fairly wide-ranging.

Mr. Burt: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) will seek to catch your eye when he has a chance, so that he can give his views.
The kind attention that the local club has paid to my work on the Bill is very welcome and I appreciate the attempts of the current chairman, Terry Robinson, and the other members of the board to develop the club over the past few years. There is no doubt, however, that the game has changed, as has its impact on local society. Years ago it had a positive image in Bury—people were interested in the club's affairs and results, and wanted to be involved—but that is no longer so. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent properly drew attention to the fears among small clubs about the membership scheme as a result of declining attendances. I wonder where he has been for the past 30 years.

Mr. Steve Norris: He has been leader of the Labour party.

Mr. Burt: I missed that bit.
Over the past few years, as a result of the constant decline in attendances, my club and those of hon. Members on both sides of the House have been put into a precarious financial position, and they are now wondering what to do. They are worried less about what will happen in the future than about the damage that has already been done.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How wide is "wide" in this debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard nothing from the hon. Member for Bury, North that is out of order.

Mr. Burt: I am answering a point made by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. I cannot remember

whether the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) was in the Chamber at the time, but he certainly arrived relatively recently.
Our reason for wanting a speedy enactment of the Bill is our concern about the decline in attendances, and the part that violence has played in removing spectators from the terraces. I have expressed that concern on behalf of sports clubs.

Mr. Tom Pendry: The hon. Gentleman asked where my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) had been for the past 30 years. I must ask where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past three. Since closed-circuit television has been placed in every ground and segregation and policing have been better organised, gate takings have increased year by year, up to the past three years. That applies to the hon. Gentleman's own team. He must ensure that his information is up to date before bringing such charges against my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Burt: The past 30 years show a pattern of continuous decline, followed by a rise in the past two or three years. If the hon. Gentleman turns his attention to other spectator sports, he will observe that there has been a return to attendance at them as well. It is a general and common trend. Our argument is that the damage done to football, and to football clubs in particular, is peculiar to violent hooliganism and it is lasting damage which will take more than a small rise in attendance over the past two or three years to correct it.
Conservative Members need no lessons or diktats from the Opposition about the purpose of a guillotine. At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent was kind enough to say that he knew all about them—and so do Conservative Members. Five in a day is quite a record. Timetable motions happen—Governments of all persuasions use them, and ours is no exception. I am quite prepared to give the reasons why we need this Bill.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made two points in particular which require answers. The first referred to the serious issue of safety: was it correct for the Bill to proceed without due reference to the findings of the Taylor report? I feel strongly that, although Hillsborough was a watershed in terms of safety in football grounds, it was not—sadly—a watershed in terms of dealing with violent spectator behaviour. That has been amply chronicled by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) who described what happened immediately post-Hillsborough. I say "imm—ediately post-Hillsborough" because, according to my recollection, within four days Blackpool and Bolton supporters had been reported for fighting. I accept that Hillsborough has made an enormous difference to the way in which we shall look at public safety in football grounds in the future, but it has not had the same impact on the way in which violent hooligan spectators are dealt with, which is the main point of the Bill.
The Government must consider carefully what Taylor has to say about every aspect of the problem. There will be some overlap, which I believe will be covered by the fact that the Bill will have to return to the House in the autumn, and also by the fact that the scheme cannot be put into effect without a further order of the House—long after the Taylor inquiry has reported. If, as is quite likely,


major safety flaws are revealed, we should produce either separate orders relating to safety in grounds or a separate Bill. I feel that the point about safety made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, although well meant, is wide of the mark.

Mr. Dobson: If the Government do not want the Bill to reflect the Taylor report, why did they move an instruction to enable safety to be dealt with in the Bill?

Mr. Burt: As I said earlier, there will be a degree of overlap between aspects of football hooliganism and violence and what the Taylor inquiry is considering. We know that the causes of the Hillsborough disaster were many and various, and that they do not relate to the substance of the Bill. I feel that it is perfectly sensible to allow a small overlap, but that it is far more important to wait for a Bill which will deal fully with public safety.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras questioned the benefits to spectators that would result from the Bill. Earlier I drew a distinction between two points of view. On Second Reading and in Committee, the hon. Gentleman and his friends took the side of committed present-day football supporters, and defended their right to the status quo above all else. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) described clearly what the present status quo in football means to many spectators—standing around in inadequate grounds, standing on the terraces in the open, or being handled with the most utmost rigour and control by security forces.
Let us consider the average Saturday afternoon spent by a group of away spectators visiting a large first-division ground. They may have committed no offence, and may intend to commit none. They arrive by train—free of drink, because they have been deemed not responsible enough to travel on a train providing it. Arriving at the railway station, they are met by policemen, often with dogs and horses if the game and the crowd are big enough. They are then marched to the ground, under guard, enclosed—imprisoned—in the appropriate section and physically segregated from other supporters, because they cannot be trusted to mix. During the ensuing 90 minutes they are watched constantly by means of closed-circuit television. At the end of the game they are detained, possibly against their will—no one says anything about civil liberties in such cases—until the other spectators have gone; then they are marched back to the station, under police protection, at great cost to the ratepayer and everyone else.

Mr. Lester: When those same people are members of the football membership scheme, will they be treated any differently?

Mr. Burt: If my hon. Friend will look into the future, he will see that that is possible. [Interruption.] Hon. Members on both sides of the House may scoff, but I am making a serious point. We live in what is all too often a cynical and defeatist world, and one of the problems is that over the past 20 to 30 years no one has successfully tackled the virus afflicting football. We have all believed in some form of gentle containment, but no one has stood out against the problem because we all assumed that it could not be beaten.
Opposition Members say that the Bill cannot tackle the problem because, in their heart of hearts, they do not believe that it is possible to change the attitudes on the

terraces. I believe that it is indeed possible, as do other Conservative Members, because 30 or 40 years ago people attended football matches in large crowds and in greater safety without the abuse and the problems on the terraces which have contributed so much to the game's collapse. That is one reason why attendances have fallen so much and the game no longer has a positive image. That is why the casual supporter who used to take his children to football and may have been taken to matches by his father no longer goes to football. I genuinely believe that Opposition Members do not care whether those people come back to the terraces, but it is absolutely vital that they do.
The Bill at last tries to tackle the problem of attitude. If there is a changed attitude to the game, and if supporters change their approach, segregation can in time be broken. Most membership clubs and supporters' clubs throughout the country maintain good relations with opposing supporters' clubs. Often they will meet in the morning before the game, there are football matches between them, and that builds up a good spirit. I was taken to Manchester City and saw the Junior Blues. That is happening everywhere. Most supporters look forward to a time when supporters of different teams can mingle together at the ground.
I do not believe that the idea that the average football supporter can be herded around and filmed every moment he is at a football ground can go on for ever. If it does, we shall never attract back the people whom football needs to get the bums on the seats and the money rolling in. There must be a change in attitude. I believe that the problem can be broken down, and I believe that the Bill will help. The fundamental flaw in the argument put by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was that he addressed himself solely to present-day football supporters, who have gradually dwindled in numbers over the past 20 or 30 years, rather than to those whom the game needs to attract.
In conclusion, I feel strongly that the failure of the game in the past 30 years to cope with the problems of modern competition has been exacerbated by its failure to deal with violent supporters. Various schemes have been tried in the past 20 years, sometimes when Labour Members were in government—and they were experts—but those measures have failed. We have not eradicated the cancer. The Bill is designed to change attitudes within the game. It will take time and it will be only part of a package designed to bring people back to the game. The casual supporter has been neglected for too long. He or she needs to be attracted back to football if the game is to survive the crisis and develop into the mass-supported activity that it once was.

Mr. Tom Pendry: You have said that the debate can be a wide one, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we could not disagree with your ruling. The hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) made our case for us. Whether or not we agreed with them, they made good Committee speeches. We should be listening to those speeches in Committee and not on a guillotine motion.
When the Leader of the House first announced that the Bill was to go through another place first, Opposition Members rightly objected. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in particular


pointed out that it was a contentious Bill and should begin its passage in this House. The response from the Government was that it was contentious on both sides of the House, and that somehow made it all right. That was partially true at the time, but it was before the Leader of the House and the Government Whips ensured that their placemen and political Josephines were on the Standing Committee—with one honourable exception, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester).

Mr. Norris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pendry: No. I may refer to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) and he may well want to intervene then.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe understands football, came to the Committee with an independent mind and on occasion voted with the Opposition.
The disgrace of the Government is that they are hurrying through the measure instead of facing up to the new problems and issues that have arisen since the Hillsborough disaster. They have set out to impose ID cards upon all football supporters at any price. As we have argued in Committee, that is no solution; nor is the blinkered approach of the Government relevant to the difficulties experienced by our national game.
Admittedly, as has been said, the Government have decided to add safety to the remit of the Committee, but what is the use of that if the Committee is not to be allowed to scrutinise, analyse or debate safety issues? We have only reached clause 5 of a 24-clause Bill, without the Opposition in any way delaying the proceedings.
There are contentious issues in the Bill which need to be fully debated. Already much of the Bill has been endorsed by the other place without any discussion of its contents. I refer, of course, to part II. It is well known that the Opposition have a great deal of sympathy for its aims, but the details need proper discussion to ensure that they are fully relevant now and after 1992. The other place discussed part II for less than half an hour, after midnight, with just a few of their Lordships present. That is no way for legislation to reach the statute book—especially legislation which affects the civil liberties of hundreds of thousands of our countrymen and women.
One has only to look at what has happened so far in Committee to see that the timetable motion is a disgrace. During the fourth sitting, for example, we discussed how Wembley stadium and its special problems fitted in to the provisions of the Bill. It became quite clear that, even at this late stage of the legislative process, the Government do not know what they will do with our national stadium. Will it be included in the ID card scheme? Will it be excluded for internationals but included for club matches? Will foreign tourists have to buy ID cards, or, equally absurd, queue with their passports to seek entry? The Minister even let slip the fact that we could face the crazy situation that English fans would have to carry ID cards when Scotland visits Wembley, but Scottish fans would not, because, luckily for them, they are outside the scheme.
Will hooligans simply buy black market tickets for the Scottish end to cause trouble? At which end is a Scot who lives in London expected to be? Will an Englishman convicted of an offence face a five-year ban from football, while a Scottish fan gets a lesser sentence? All those are

legitimate issues raised in Committee and left in the air as the Government have not thought the scheme through properly. That was in clause 1. We have now reached clause 5 and issues which are just as worrying.
The Government seem to think that pensioners and women are a serious threat to public order. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) about the number of pensioners who were caught who were not even inside the ground. The inclusion of women in the scheme does not make sense. The football authorities, and the Government have no record whatsoever of women having been arrested or ejected from grounds. Despite what the Prime Minister and others have said, for the first time women are being attracted to football, through voluntary membership schemes, family areas, creche facilities and so on. The ID scheme will set that back a long way.
Are those matters such a serious threat to public order that all pensioners must be forced to carry ID cards to matches? That is nonsense, and Conservative Members know it and are embarrassed about it. Should important debates on such matters as civil liberties be curtailed simply so that the Government can railroad the Bill on to the statute book at the earliest opportunity? What is the hurry? We must ask the Government that. The Minister has said repeatedly that he would not put the legislation in place until the technology was there, and everyone agrees that it is not there at present.
When one considers who has been delaying the Committee, the Government's tactics become clear. I cite the afternoon sitting of Thursday 6 July as a case in point. No fewer than 13 Conservative Members, including the Minister, spoke between 9 pm and the midnight Adjournment. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) spoke for more than 50 minutes and concentrated mainly on the relevance of the ferret to matches between Bolton and Preston. Progress may not have been made to the liking of the Leader of the House, and we know why.
The reasons I have given so far for opposing the timetable motion are reasons of detail. The matter of principle is that Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry has not yet reported and will not report while the Committee is sitting. The inquiry has examined the tragedy on 15 April in detail and from every angle, yet the inquiry's findings—in particular, the final report—will have no bearing on the Committee's discussions.
Just last Friday, as the inquiry finished, relatives of the 95 people who died decided to pursue criminal proceedings for manslaughter against the senior police officers involved in the incident. Senior police officers were criticised harshly for their actions and strategy on that fateful day, yet against that background, the Government proceed merrily with this irrelevant and possibly dangerous Bill.
The Government retort that the findings can be taken on board at a later stage; we have heard that again today. How late will that stage be? The Government have already started to table amendments and new clauses on safety matters, even though Lord Justice Taylor himself has not reached any conclusions. There will be virtually no opportunity to debate the Taylor report in relation to the Bill, as just one day has been allocated for Report and Third Reading. We shall have only one day to take on board any serious findings and recommendations from Lord Justice Taylor's interim report alone. Even when the Bill becomes law and the new Football Membership Authority sets up the scheme, perhaps incorporating some


of the ideas of the Taylor inquiry, there will be no opportunity to amend the scheme in the House, but only to accept or reject it.
Lord Justice Taylor's sensible approach is already a contrast to the Government's. The Government want to force the Bill through come what may, because the Prime Minister wants to be seen to be acting. The Taylor inquiry, on the other hand, is thinking ahead and has already asked the Football League for details of all matches in August at which it expects capacity crowds. Clearly, safety rather than expediency is at the heart of Lord Justice Taylor's approach. It is a disgrace that we are even debating a timetable motion to guillotine the Committee today. If Conservative Members had any real interest in football, the Bill would have been shelved long ago. As it is, the match is being halted before we have even reached half-time.

Mr. John Carlisle: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), whose knowledge of football is well known in the House and whose views command respect here and in the all-party football committee. His contributions in Standing Committee were similar to the opinions he expressed today in the House. They have been somewhat shallow and based on the old, tired remedies. New remedies have been lacking from the Opposition. The reasons he put forward for objecting to the guillotine are as spurious as most of the arguments from the Opposition.
There is no doubt in the minds of my right hon. and hon. Friends—with one possible exception—who want the Bill to be passed, that the actions taken by Opposition Members have been such that the matters they have raised in Committee have been almost laughable in some cases. Their somewhat pious view that they represent the interests of football and the so-called "class" who go to watch football—again, a rather outdated notion—is totally refuted by Conservative Members, among whom are people with a deep knowledge of the game and an active interest in seeing it improved. That is why we have supported the Government consistently in this admirable measure. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport is to be congratulated for his activity and the enormous amount of work he has undertaken in pushing the Bill forward and ensuring that it comes before the House at the earliest possible moment.
In the decade in which I have been in this place, I have perhaps found favour with the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) and his predecessor, Sir Phillip Holland, in that I have not been able to become a member of a Committee that has been cut short. I was somewhat bemused by the fact that Bills were brought before the Floor of the House to be guillotined. My own feelings were that such a procedure was unfortunate.
However, having sat through the proceedings of this Committee for almost 40 hours and heard the rantings, ravings and nonsense of the Opposition, I am going down the road of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) on the basis that perhaps every Bill should be guillotined. There is no doubt in my mind, those of my hon. Friends and those of members of the public who come to listen to our proceedings and who will read about it in Hansard that the Opposition's tactics on the Bill

have been nothing less than wrecking. They could not have been considered helpful, or in the best interests not only of football but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) said, of those who could not care a toss about the game itself. That is the tragedy of the Opposition's tactics on the Bill.

Mr. Barry Porter: I am in something of a dilemma. I too rather agree with my hon. Friend that most, if not all, Bills should be timetabled in some way. I came into the House today, therefore, happy to vote for the timetable motion. However, I have had to listen to the debate, and I am beginning to be a bit worried. I think that I shall still vote for the timetable motion, but I would not wish that to be interpreted as full-hearted support for the Bill. I voted for the Bill once out of loyalty and a desire for unity, rather than out of conviction. I am not sure that those emotions and feelings can be stretched too far on Third Reading.

Mr. Carlisle: If my hon. Friend waits and listens to my words of wisdom, and those of my hon. Friends, if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as well as the words of wisdom of my hon. Friend the Minister, he will remain wholly convinced that the Bill should be guillotined and put into practice as quickly as possible.
I want to deal with some of the points put, rightly, by the Opposition, which were also brought up in Standing Committee about why the Bill should not be guillotined. At the heart of the Opposition's arguments right the way through have been the natural arguments and emotions surrounding the Taylor report. As I said earlier to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), he and his right hon. and hon. Friends seem to be treading on dangerous ground in pre-empting what Lord Justice Taylor will say. It is unfortunate that Opposition Members seem to assume that Lord Justice Taylor's conclusions will be what they believe and a solution to the problems in football.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) put the point cogently: what happened at Hillsborough will not necessarily be relevant to what has happened throughout the past decade and more in football. It must be taken into account, and that is why I fully support what the Government have done. I was one who urged some postponement of the discussion. The report must be taken into account and it is right that we should have a chance on the Floor of the House, when we return after the summer recess, to consider the interim report which, as most of us who take an interest in these matters will understand, will contain recommendations that could be included in the Bill if it is considered necessary.
However, it is dangerous for the Opposition to keep quoting what Lord Justice Taylor may say. I hope that he will almost ignore the proceedings on the Floor of the House this evening and the proceedings in Committee in drawing up his conclusions. Hillsborough is important to the Bill, but it is not an essential part of it.
The other basis to the Opposition's tactics has been reminiscence. Many of us who served on the Committee have enjoyed, indeed revelled in, the reminiscences of the hon. Members for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), both eloquent men. However, I wonder whether those comments are relevant to the modern world, which was seen in what happened in front


of the pavilion at Lord's on Saturday. I was present and saw a gang of youths, intoxicated—having had a long and enjoyable day at that ground, just as I had and—incensed to such an extent that they started fighting among themselves. I found the comments of Colonel Stephenson, the secretary of the Marylebone cricket club, somewhat interesting when he said—I paraphrase—"We do not usually have trouble, other than at the Benson and Hedges game, because that is the only major game that is played outside the football season." His comments were particularly apt—[HON. MEMBERS: "He was wrong."]
Of course, those hooligans could well move from football into other sporting events. That is the essence of the Bill. I can never understand the Opposition's total antagonism to the Bill which, uniquely, says to football, "We will try to take the problem away from your game and where we put it is the Government's, society's or whoever else's problem. However, we will try to ensure that those who go to football matches can do so in peace and tranquillity and with the knowledge that their sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters, nephews and nieces will return home without having been molested, subjected to obscenities and jostled in the crowd on the way to the ground."
Opposition Members who protest that the Bill infringes civil liberties and takes from individuals the chance to go to a game when they want to do so should remember those who live in and around our football grounds. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South has said, those Opposition Members should remember the millions of people who are not interested in whether or not football games take place.
Those are the reasons for the Bill, and that is why, purely because of the Opposition's tactics, the Government have had to table this timetable motion. As far as we can, all Conservative Members are anxious to see the measure through; hence our relative silence in Standing Committee. Conservative Members have a deep knowledge of the game and wanted to allow the Opposition the chance to advance their arguments.

Mr. Denis Howell: I refer to the "relative silence" of Conservative Members in Committee. So far, they have made 50 speeches and have intervened, in debates on the five clauses that we have covered so far, 286 times. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) spoke for 50 minutes in one debate, during which the Minister for Sport intervened 17 times. That shows how ludicrous the hon. Gentleman's case is.

Mr. Carlisle: How extraordinary for the Opposition to accuse Government Back Benchers, who are actively trying to discuss the Bill and to take up the points made by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, of non-silence. That is an extraordinary attitude when so often Opposition Members have accused Conservative Members of saying nothing. I think that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) will recall the word "poodles" or "stooges". It is disgraceful that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) is now saying that we should not say anything.
Conservative Members have had their say and have disagreed with everything that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have said. Perhaps that is what gripes

the right hon. Gentleman. What gripes him even further must be the fact that the sense and good reason expressed by Conservative members on the Committee will be cut short by the guillotine motion. Indeed, Conservative Members are sorry that we will not be able to sit for 100, 200 or even 300 hours so that we could go through all the points and put our case to Opposition Members.
The most important reason why the Bill should proceed as swiftly as possible is that football is running out of time. That is the tragedy. As my hon. Friends have already said, even after the awful events of Hillsborough and the terrible events at Selhurst park and other grounds, we must ask when the so-called "football supporters" will learn that they should go to games to enjoy the game and not to enjoy a punch-up or to disrupt the match for the remainder who are attempting to see the match.
As I said in Committee and in the House on Second Reading, I was present at the Millwall v. Luton game and never want to see such actions again. However, Opposition Members have adopted the regrettable attitude of saying that the Bill should be thwarted and defeated on the basis that they are happy with the status quo. In nearly 40 hours of debate in Committee, we have heard absolutely no alternative from them. The Opposition are, inevitably, the status quo party. They are happy that things should go on as they are.
The Opposition have pointed to an increase in crowds. That has come about partly because there have been more games but also because, as one of my hon. Friends has said, this game in particular, and spectator sports in general, have been attracting more people. I refer to rugby league, rugby union and other sports.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: Does my hon. Friend remember the occasion when he tried to take the Committee through the night to ensure that the Bill was properly debated but the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said that there were several elderly people among Opposition Members, so they could not go through the night—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Well, I am sure that my hon. Friend can remember the occasion when the Opposition moved that the debate be adjourned, but did not have the guts to carry it through.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt—

Mr. Wareing: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I shall give way in a moment
As the Bill proceeded, my hon. Friends seemed to get not a second or a third, but a fourth wind. We really got into the basics and—

Mr. Wareing: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: Yes, in a moment.
We are debating the importance of the Bill. We heard some admirable speeches; our conviction about how right the Government were grew minute by minute.

Mr. Wareing: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) was wrong to allege that I said that elderly people would not be willing to go through the night? What I cared about—and expressed a care for—was the fact that the health of hon. Members could be affected. No other legislature in the world would discuss a controversial issue


such as this, which deserves positive and proper deliberation, at 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Government moved the closure.

Mr. Carlisle: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has said. However, in his position as an Opposition Whip, he must ask himself why the first five hours of discussion in Committee were spent on the sittings motion. If he was so anxious to get on with the Bill and, as his hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said, to get on with part II, in view of the tight timetable and the fact that there was time to return to the Bill after the summer recess, why did he encourage his right hon. and hon. Friends to argue spuriously about the time we should take instead of getting on with the guts of the Bill? If the House is to have any sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's argument, it must be on the basis of the record. The hon. Gentleman knows how far we got, and he knows the basis of the Opposition's tactics.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has just let the cat out of the bag? He has welcomed the timetable motion, which will ensure that the whole Bill is debated properly and timetabled and that the hon. Gentleman will know what time he can go home to bed every night.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have great respect for Opposition Members, especially senior Opposition Members such as the right hon. Member for Small Heath. who is making his swan song. Obviously, we should like to give him the opportunity to speak in the House with great eloquence and at great length and the opportunity to make his mark with this Bill for the first time in the 30 years that he has been in the House.
The right hon. Member for Small Heath knows that I have the utmost respect for him. However, he must be aware that he will be soundly defeated, on the last major legislation in which he will be involved. The people of this country and his constituents will say to him in his dotage—hopefully, he will be in another place—that his one mistake was not to support this Bill.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I put it to you again that this is an abuse of the House. We are supposed to be debating the reasons for a guillotine on this Bill. We have heard from Conservative Members four Second Reading debate speeches which were full of jeers, scoffing and personal abuse. We have heard no arguments about the need for a guillotine. This is a very short debate. Can you bring Conservative Members to order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present earlier when I told the House that allocation of time motions lend themselves to fairly wide debates. I have heard nothing that is out of order.

Mr. Carlisle: I will conclude my remarks, because the House should have the opportunity to hear what Opposition Members have to say. Opposition Members have been an advantage to the Bill; the public will probably want to hear the Opposition's arguments to convince them that the Government are absolutely right.
It is sad that deliberation on this major and important Bill must be cut short because of the Opposition's tactics. However, the Opposition have this very much in their own court. They plead the interests of the small clubs, but they know in their hearts that when the Bill comes into effect and is successful the small clubs and not the larger clubs will be successful under the scheme. The Opposition plead that the Bill will do nothing to remove hooliganism inside or outside grounds. However, in their hearts they know that something had to be done because of the scourge of hooliganism and violence which has besmirched our national game for so many years.
The Government are right to say to the House that enough is enough. There is still ample time to discuss Taylor after the summer recess. There is still ample time in Committee, between now and the end of July, to discuss the important measures before us. At least now we will know that those measures and our discussions will be relevant to the Bill and not consist simply of rhetoric and emotion from Opposition Members.

Mr. Keith Vaz: All hon. Members must want to dissociate themselves from the disgraceful personal attacks made by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who revealed one reason why the timetable motion had to be put before the House. His speech was similar to that made by the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), who has also made personal attacks on hon. Members both in the Chamber and in Committee. On one occasion in Committee, the hon. Member for Luton, North used parliamentary privilege to defame someone in the Public Gallery and invent an incident which took place when the Committee had risen.

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The incident to which the hon. Gentleman referred was not invented. It is recorded and evidence can be made available to the hon. Gentleman or the House on the basis of the allegations that I made. What the hon. Gentleman has said is certainly a slur on my character and the comments that I made in Committee.

Mr. Vaz: This is the most important Bill in the history of football and it deserves a great deal of parliamentary time to enable the Opposition to scrutinise its effects. My right hon. and hon. Friends are right to say that the Bill will have severe effects on civil liberties. Judging by the comments made by the hon. Member for Luton, North, the Government may be considering the possibility of imposing identity cards on cricket supporters and supporters of other sports. That is why it is extremely important that the House should devote a great deal of time to considering the Bill.
We need more parliamentary time to consider the possible effects of the Bill on hooliganism, although we believe that it will have no such effect. We need more time to consider the costs involved in clubs installing the proposed machinery and we need more time to consider the inconvenience involved for all those who have supported the game loyally for so many years. We need more time to consider the non-registration of casual supporters and the social effects of the Bill on families who want to watch matches. We need more time to debate the


possibility of criminal offences involving the transfer of cards between holders and non-holders and to consider the various clauses restricting people's liberties.
As the Bill proceeds through the House and is reported in the national and local press, I—and, I am sure, other hon. Members—receive many letters from football supporters who are keen to know what is happening and to express their opposition to the Government's scheme. Last Saturday I met supporters from Leicester City football club. Mr. Gary Sikle, secretary of the Fox editorial board which circulates a local football newspaper in Leicester, was anxious to raise several points which had been referred to by the Minister and other Members in Committee. Supporters wish to raise those matters, but they can advise members of the Committee properly only if they have time to consider the various clauses as they come before the Committee.
I have also received a letter from my parish priest, Father Brown, who is a keen football supporter. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Luton, North said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), Father Brown wrote:
Denis Howell is the only successful Minister for Sport in recent memory; as no Tory Minister has ever understood the problems involved, or even cared about his job or soccer supporters in general … Instead of improving safety and facilities, the government and the Press are obsessed with the problem of hooliganism. Yet the majority of hooligans are not football supporters … Root out them, and treat the 99·9 per cent. who arc law-abiding, as human beings.
Father Brown has supported Derby County football club for more than 30 years. He wants an opportunity to put before the Committee his views about the effects of the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, I am the president of two local football clubs, Hillcroft football club and Thurnby Lodge football club, and I continue to receive representations from both clubs about the practical effects of the Bill.
I understand that the hon. Member for Bury, South is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Attorney-General. I cannot understand why he and the Government do not want to wait for the outcome of the Taylor inquiry. As we are dealing with a major piece of legislation which will have severe consequences for football, it must be appropriate to await the outcome of a major inquiry commissioned by the Secretary of State for the Environment. Surely we should hear what the clubs have done in their schemes.
We have heard a great deal about the scheme at Luton. Two members of Luton Town's football supporters scheme visited me on Saturday. They brought me their membership cards and told me about the various tricks that certain supporters get up to in passing their cards to other people. Those supporters do not even live in Luton, but their cards are passed to other people who gain admission to the ground. That shows the flaws in the scheme proposed by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans).

Mr. David Evans: Irrespective of whether there are holes in Luton Town's scheme, does the hon. Gentleman agree that for three consecutive seasons there has been only one arrest inside or outside Luton's ground? We are well aware that supporters of other clubs belong to Luton

Town's scheme, but it is significant that they all stand together and enjoy the game as supporters used to 20 or 30 years ago without fear of being punched on the nose.

Mr. Vaz: The supporters who brought me the cards do not like the bureaucratic principles which operate at Luton. They have proved that it is possible to live elsewhere and to misuse cards produced by Luton Town football club. They produced persuasive arguments showing the tremendous increase in crime in the city centre. Such crime may not occur during the games, but it certainly occurs in the city centre. Crime has increased.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Vaz: No, the hon. Gentleman had a chance to put his arguments but he chose to spend his time engaging in personal attacks on hon. Members.
It is important for the Minister to look at the international evidence. I commend to him an article in World Soccer magazine this month which shows the effect that the experimental scheme is having in Holland. It says:
The dangers of the card scheme have been touted for some time and predictably made an international impact at what is for all Dutch people the most emotive confrontation of all: the international match against West Germany.
The experiment has been deemed a failure.
That is new evidence, but we shall not have the time to discuss it, because the Bill is to be guillotined.
In addition, I discovered on Friday that the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has overall charge of the Bill, has not visited a football ground or attended a match in the last couple of years. I put down a question to the Secretary of State asking him to list the number of football matches that he had attended. Although the Minister for Sport says that he has attended about a dozen matches and that his hon. Friends in his Department have been to matches, the Secretary of State for the Environment has not even visited one.
We need to take evidence and to understand what the police are saying. Certainly the police in Leicester are convinced that the scheme will not work. They have managed to fashion a good relationship with the football club. They have bought video equipment, they ensure that supporters are segregated, and they have worked in partnership with those who run Leicester City football club. I wish that they could work more closely with the supporters, and I hope that one of the effects of our deliberations in Committee will be to encourage more clubs to work with supporters.
We need more time to expose the problems in the Bill, many of which have been accepted by the Minister. I referred to that in an intervention. Clause 2 creates an absolute offence in terms of the entry of supporters to grounds without cards. Because hon. Members on both sides of the Committee raised that issue and the serious nature of the offence to be created, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department decided to look again at the clause. On clause 3, in view of the nature of the Opposition amendments and the experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, the Minister decided to look again at some of those amendments. That is why we need additional time.
We need to debate in great detail the effects of the Bill and we must be able to bring to the attention of the Minister matters of which he may not be aware. His officials may not be aware of them either because they have been told to pursue the Bill with blind dogma. It is also


necessary to debate matters at great length in order to expose problems. As has been said, clause 5 creates two new offences, one of them a very serious offence of supplying false information. Another clause gives enormous power to the Football Membership Authority in terms of its dealings with private citizens. We need to debate that at great length to show why it will be a major erosion of civil liberties.
I am not clear from the arguments of the Leader of the House as to why we have to proceed with such haste. No evidence was adduced by the Leader of the House or by the Minister in Committee to show why we should move so quickly. It is clear that the Government have something to hide and have to move quickly, that they are unaware of the consequences of the Bill or—this is the most likely explanation—they do not care at all about the future of the game. The Opposition care about the future of football. We know that the scheme has disastrous implications for the game, and we urge that more time should be given to discuss these serious and very important matters.

Mr. Steve Norris: I have listened to the entire debate, including the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and at this stage I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that I shall vote for the timetable motion.
In Committee I heard the clearest possible evidence from the Opposition that they are not interested in making progress on the Bill and never have been. A straightforward example of that is that they spent about five hours debating the sittings motion. As hon. Members will know, but as those who read Hansard may not, the sittings motion is merely to decide when and for how long a Committee will sit. It is usually decided that a Committee will sit on Tuesdays and Thursdays and it may sit mornings and afternoons. If both sides are prepared to get on with the business, the motion should detain the Committee for about 45 seconds. In this case it took longer because Opposition Members made a series of spurious points and did so with considerable repetition. That meant that we spent hour after hour simply debating whether to sit on Tuesdays and Thursdays. In view of that, it is beyond reason to imagine that the Opposition have taken a constructive attitude to the Bill.
The Opposition are not the slightest bit interested in making progress. That is because they and we have fundamentally opposed views about the Bill. The shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), spoke about us losing the argument. He cannot have read his Committee Hansard very carefully, because it shows that the argument was lost by hon. Gentlemen—hon. Members—opposite. If I was their football manager I would say that I was as sick as a parrot because they have consistently managed to fumble the ball, and more often than not they kicked it into the back of their own net. Their fundamental assertion—we heard it again today—is that they do not think that football and violence are particularly linked. I could not believe my ears when I heard them say again today that there is violence in other games such as rugby, tiddleywinks and croquet. They must be blind and deaf.
When the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was speaking, somebody was heard to ask where he had been. He has been the leader of the Labour party, but

we all know that that is hardly a position from which one is likely to get a realistic view of the world. None the less, one would have assumed that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have seen enough of the sickening scenes on television to know what every man, woman and child knows: that there is an inextricable and sickening link between violence and football. The reasons for that are many and varied and there is no point in yet another sociological lecture such as those that we had for hour upon hour from the Gentlemen opposite. The link exists, and it is high time that something was done about it.
I agree on one matter with the Opposition. Hon. Members on both sides have tended to wring their hands rather too much and say, "Oh, isn't it awful? It is very difficult and has all sorts of sociological reasons which are somehow beyond our control and which we cannot do anything about." At last we have a Government who have said that they are sickened by what they have seen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) spoke about the Crystal Palace game. I was at West Ham that week and, as hon. Members will know, at each Football League ground there was supposed to be a minute's silence for the Hillsborough victims. At that match between Millwall and West Ham, people could not keep quiet for even 60 seconds. They could not restrain themselves from shouting abuse at each other or from catcalling and arm waving in the hostile way that they do. It was revolting. I do not want to know about the history of this great and glorious working-class game of ours; I want to know what we must do to eradicate that sort of behaviour.
First, we have to take the issue seriously. The Government are to be commended for being the first to be prepared to put together a Bill and to say, "We shall do something about it."

Ms. Kate Hoey: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he agreed with absolutely everything I said in Committee, because he continually refers to hon. Gentlemen in Committee. Does that mean that he agrees that to link women in any way with football hooliganism or violence in or outside football grounds is disgraceful and that he is sorry that the Government and Conservative Members will not accept our amendment, which would exclude women from having to have identity cards?

Mr. Norris: I thought that I had corrected myself when, referring to the Committee's composition, I talked about hon. Gentlemen. It would have been remiss of us all not to recognise the constructive role that the hon. Lady has played in the Committee's deliberations, although she has been somewhat at odds with some of her more experienced colleagues.
The point that the hon. Lady raised is an important principle. The Bill, rightly or wrongly, is an enabling Bill. It creates a Football Membership Authority, which is charged with producing the details of the scheme. It is entirely consistent with that that we do not predetermine what the FMA will produce. We should allow it to consider all the issues and as much evidence as it can, and to bring forward a scheme which will tackle the problem in the round.
It is self-evident that neither women nor pensioners are particularly dangerous groups when it comes to football attendance. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister


would be urged by me and by any sensible person to tell the FMA that, when it considers the issue, he will be sympathetic to that point of view. Although it is perfectly reasonable and straightforward to take that point of view, it is another matter to start to write the detail of the scheme, as Opposition Members are trying to do, before the FMA has had a chance to consider the issue. That is what seems to me to be so irredeemably stupid.

Mr. Denis Howell: The plain fact is that the exemptions for disabled persons and for children accompanied by adults were written into the Bill in the other place. The attempt there to get exemptions for women and pensioners was voted down at the instigation of the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is detail."] It is not a detail that when Parliament seeks to put into the Bill the same exemptions as the Government have already allowed, they are beaten down.

Mr. Norris: I will not repeat myself, as others want to speak. This is a straightforward enabling Bill. It creates a Football Membership Authority which is charged with the preparation of a scheme and with presenting it to the Secretary of State. If one accepts that general principle—the scheme cannot come fast enough for me—it is most illogical to bind the hands of the FMA by laying down conditions.
It is perfectly reasonable to tell the FMA, "By all means consider the evidence that members of the Committee have adduced. By all means integrate it into the scheme and then present the scheme to the Secretary of State for him to consider and, we hope, approve".

Mr. David Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition, who want to exclude pensioners and women, may change their tune when they see the benefits that may accrue from holding such a card?

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend will know that I made precisely that point in Committee. The need to possess a membership card is presented as an appalling affront to civil liberties, and it is forgotten that the greatest loss of civil liberties is that occasioned to the tens of thousands of people who live around football grounds and whose lives are made an absolute misery on Saturday afternoons. Opposition Members seem to regard it as a mark of Cain to hold a card when the principle of most clubs of which one wants to be a member is that one will carry the card with pride. Setting aside all that, we have the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) in operating a scheme that is eminently successful in marketing terms—he has said that 32 companies are involved in it.
I have no doubt that the House will ultimately divide on this simple issue. We have had delay and obfuscation from Opposition Members, and no doubt that will continue. It is ironic that, during consideration of the Bill, Opposition Members have covered themselves in the most appalling tactical confusion. When, in response to their opinion that there was not enough time to debate the Bill, we said, "Fine, in that case we will sit Wednesdays as well," they said, "Oh no, please don't let us do that." When we said, "Please don't let us stop now, it is only 1 o'clock in the morning and after all you should not have taken this job if you could not take a joke and go through the night,"

Opposition Members said that they might get sick and had elderly Members to consider. I appreciate the point, but it is the quintessence of everything that we have known about the Opposition for the past 10 years—when push comes to shove, they have no bottle.
There are Opposition Members who have a vision of the game of football, which we have heard in colourful detail. I will not repeat them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] No, I promise no ferret or whippet stories. Some of us find that vision of the game of football amusing, if only because it is so rose-tinted that it completely ignores what, sadly, the game has become.
One's attitude to the Bill is dictated by one overriding consideration—

Mr. Wareing: No. 10.

Mr. Norris: There will be members who refuse, for whatever anarchic and quixotic reason, to have these cards and who will therefore deny a football club the opportunity to admit them and to be profitable as a result, and then there will be the dozens of people who will go along when the game is cleaned up and it is safe for women, children and families to go and watch. Those hundreds of thousands of potential supporters who are prepared to go to Luton because of the experience they have there, but who are not prepared to go to many other grounds in all four divisions of the football league, are the people at whom the Bill is aimed.
I am happy that the Bill that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has so skilfully piloted through Committee so far should be on the statute book at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: The last 10 minutes of folly from the Conservative Benches have been a testament to the attitude taken by the Tory party, with the honourable exception of the rebels, to a Bill which affects millions of people in their pursuit of a decent national sport.
Let us get one or two facts straight. We did not debate the sittings motion for five hours. We debated it, as is the rule in the House it is almost a convention—for two and a half hours on the morning it was presented. When, in indecent haste, only two sittings later, the Government brought forward another sittings motion, proposing that we should meet on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, we debated that for only about five minutes.
This is called a guillotine motion, but in reality, the Bill has been guillotined from the outset. Our argument with the Government has been over the fact that they have been absolutely rigid about the Bill being out of Committee by 27 July. Why? Because the woman in 10 Downing street has decided. That all-wise all-powerful and all-knowledgeable Prime Minister, who never makes a mistake, must be obeyed. The date that the Government set was 27 July.
Our argument was that there was every reason in the world to extend that into the overflow Session in October, because by that time we may have—we cannot be certain—Lord Justice Taylor's interim report. I have asked the Leader of the House whether the Government would still go ahead with the Bill in October if Lord Justice Taylor showed that he was opposed to it or suggested that there might be a fault in the Bill—perhaps even a teeny-weeny


mistake on the part of the Prime Minister. The Leader of the House replied that the Bill would go ahead, but he used the word "implemented".
If in the interim report in October there is a suggestion by Lord Justice Taylor that harm could be done and that it would not be in the interests of public safety to implement the Bill, when the Bill reaches the statute hook—unfortunately, the Government have the majority to enable them to get it there—will the Minister for Sport refuse to implement it? The whole world will be waiting for the answer. I say "the world", because in Committee on Thursday morning we were told that the scheme would be worldwide. We asked what would happen if an American tourist, when given the choice on a Saturday afternoon between the theatre, a cinema or a football match, chose to go to a football match. The Minister's answer was that he could not go unless he had had his photograph taken and his membership application had gone through the computer.
We then asked the Minister what would happen if English clubs get back into Europe—as we all hope they will, except, perhaps, the Minister, who has done all he can to stop them—and, for example, Arsenal is drawn at home against Ajax of Amsterdam and 10,000 Dutchmen come over to see the game. The answer was that every one of those 10,000 Dutchmen will have to fill in membership forms and have their photographs taken before they can watch the match.

Mr. David Martin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wareing: I am sorry, but I shall not give way, because there is not time.
When the Minister was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) whether the scheme would apply Communitywide, he said that it would apply worldwide. We can imagine the position of someone leaving, for example, the Soviet Union to visit the United Kingdom. When he applies for a visa, he will have to ensure that he fills in an application for a football club membership card just in case he should decide, when in London to see Chelsea or Tottenham play. Everyone in the country, with the exception of the Prime Minister, knows that that is nonsense.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) asked us to imagine the situation at Wembley when the half of the fans who support England must have identity cards, but the half who support Scotland do not. However, suppose a Scotland fan lives in Manchester and travels to Wembley with his English friend, who is also from Manchester. When he gets to Wembley stadium, will he go into the Scottish end of the ground? Is the Scottish fan who comes from Manchester to be dealt with in a different way from the Scottish fan who supports Manchester United? There are a hundred and one different facets to the Bill. They all lead to one ludicrous conclusion. The Government have not done their homework, and they are acting on a whim—the whim of one woman, who knows as much about football as, these days, she appears to know about the British economy.
The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) is continually telling us how crowd numbers are down. They may he down at Luton—that is what happens when one bans away supporters—but that is not true elsewhere. Clubs up and down the country are making a real attempt

to improve attendances, with such things as closed circuit television, advantages to season ticket holders and family enclosure tickets. Everton football club, for example, can account for 24,000 people, which is three times the average gate at Luton Town—and that is before the season starts. That number represents the season tickets and other facilities that have been taken up by potential supporters. The picture is different from the one painted by the Government.
During the 1987–88 season, 99·996 per cent. of people attending football matches were not arrested. Of course, we do not know from the Government what percentage of that small percentage who were arrested were actually convicted.
Part II of the Bill, which needs to be properly debated, is at fault. When the Minister talks about the use of the Bill to deal with those convicted of offences abroad when they follow the England soccer team, we should ask the Minister how many people were convicted in, for example, West Germany. The answer would be none; it was a nil return. Even if the measure had applied last year. it would not have applied to any person attending football matches in West Germany.
The argument that England is unique or has the worst problem is wrong. One only has to look at the position elsewhere. The security officer of the Dutch Football Association almost had his home bombed. In October 1987, there were riots at the Olympic stadium in Athens. Police were called in and tear gas was used. In December 1988, at Tilburg in Holland, 82 Ajax supporters were arrested and one was found to be in possession of a home-made fragmentation grenade. At the Den Haag match at that time, three people were injured in an explosion near the ground. In Enschede in Holland, there were 30 arrests when Feyenoord lost 6:1. In March 1987, a match between Den Haag and Ajax was abandoned at half-time because of crowd trouble. We tend to take all the stick, as we did for the Heysel stadium incident Italians were involved in that incident, but not one Italian—some of them were flaunting Fascist banners—has faced the same consequences as Liverpool supporters.
It is a scandal that this country's name has been dragged through the gutter because of the way in which false criticism is aimed at people in this country because they invade football pitches. The only pitch that I saw invaded last year was the one at Seoul in South Korea, where the Minister for Sport could not contain himself when the England hockey team won a trophy. Perhaps he will understand the passion which is aroused in people with real red blood in their veins when they see our national sport being played. That is the reason for the excitement and why very often there is an invasion of the pitch. Who has heard of trouble when the Liverpool and Everton teams play? Why should the Liverpool and Everton fans be called upon to have identity cards when, at the last local Derby match at Anfield last December, there were only three arrests, and those were all outside the ground—two for attempting to break into cars and one for ticket touting? Of course, we know that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) loves ticket touts, so they are not so important as real football fans.
There can be no doubt that there will be a breach of civil liberties. Conservative Members should ask themselves what would happen if they had to have identity cards to get into a cinema, a theatre or a race course. It would be an absolute scandal. That is what we are coming to as a


result of the Government's antics. It is, however, one more nail in the coffin of a Government whose ignorance is outstripped only by their arrogance.

Mr. Denis Howell: There are many compelling reasons for opposing the guillotine motion, and contempt for Parliament and its procedures is one of them. Throughout the Bill's passage in another place, on Second Reading and in Committee, the views or parliamentarians have been shown to be of no account. As Lord Hailsham said, that is one of the first proofs of an elective dictatorship.
The Bill was conceived in the depths of the Prime Minister's prejudices, which are considerable, and it has been brought to us by her political pageboy. Throughout the proceedings, he has dutifully carried out the bidding of his mistress.
Issue after issue has been properly raised, but they have been met not with rational argument, but with the brute force of a massive parliamentary majority. In Committee, although we have been told that there will be certain exemptions to the scheme, we have also been told—my intervention today reaffirmed it—that everyone within the European Community and in the rest of the world must register as a result of the Bill; otherwise, they will be under threat of being judged criminals for going to a football match here. No other civilised country in the world has adopted such a lunatic approach to such problems.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)—he stirs now and again—told us that the Government had picked out this problem and decided to deal with it. They have, of course, because they told us that they would get rid of violence in society. They were elected in 1979 to get rid of violence in society, but it is worse now than it has ever been; the incidence of violence has increased every year. The Bill has nothing to do with football; it has everything to do with camouflaging the Government's failure to deal with that violence.
In Committee, the Government had sufficient logic to accept that accompanied children and the disabled should be exempt from the scheme. We have attempted to extend that exemption to women and pensioners. We had a song-and-dance act and we were told that women cannot be exempted because 40 male supporters might go to an Oxfam shop to buy women's clothes. What a basis for the great constitutional law of this country. Our exemption has been rejected because some people might turn up at an Oxfam shop to buy women's clothes. In Committee that argument has become known as the "doctrine of drag".
No one has ever heard of one pensioner taking out his pension book and hitting another pensioner with it at any football match in this country, but we have been told that pensioners cannot be exempted. There is no other entertainment, be it theatre, concerts, sport or the cinema, that does not make special arrangements for pensioners. It is perfectly proper to extend the concept of family-member enclosures to take account of the other desirable classes of people. The Government have turned that down. At one stroke, they have managed to insult 26 million women and 10·5 million pensioners.
The Government are not attacking the hooligan or the criminal. This is the only time in history that legislation

will be enacted in which the innocent will be singled out. The Government intend to take away their civil liberties and to make impositions on their rights. That is absolutely disgraceful.
Morning, afternoon and night, the Government just churn it on in Committee. We have been told that we have been working morning, noon and night, and Committee members have become hallowed because of the hours that have been clocked up. In other words, the Government are not interested in the argument or in civil liberties: they are only interested in clocking up the hours. They have clocked up the hours to justify the guillotine motion. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case, and it is an absolute disgrace.
Given the Government's tremendous speed, it is interesting to look at the history of the case. The Leader of the House has told us that the Bill arose from the Popplewell report. The interim Popplewell report was issued four years ago and the final report was issued three and a half years ago. If the problems are such that they require desperate legislation, what on earth have the Government done in the four years since Popplewell? Why did they not introduce this Bill earlier? If the Government are right about the need for the Bill, they are guilty of criminal negligence because they allowed four years to go by before doing anything about the problem. Now the Government are trying to rush the Bill through in about four days, and that is ridiculous.
The Minister has already said that everyone in the world must register if they wish to attend a football match here. That is a classic case to consider. In other words, the 352 million people who make up the EC must register. Those people have rights, however, and if the Bill discriminated against them, as well it might, it could be unlawful under European law. We have had no opportunity to consider that possibility, but it is an important matter. Previously, we were told that overseas visitors would be allowed to produce their passports at the turnstile. The Minister has abandoned that; now, he tells us that they must all register.
We are producing a Bill that will last for about 50 years. What will happen if, as we all hope, English clubs get back into Europe? Imagine that Anderlecht or Real Madrid is drawn away to play at Liverpool or Everton. Such a match would take place three weeks after the draw and those clubs might well want to bring 10,000 supporters with them. There is no way that any club secretary in this country could register, photograph, computerise and process 10,000 European visitors in the space of three weeks. That proposition is a prescription for another disaster. When that happens, it will be on the head of the Minister and his friends.
During our discussions, the Government have said that the scheme is not negotiable. They have said that they know it all, and that they know best. They have said that they know better than the police, football supporters, the Opposition and everyone else. Therefore, the next disaster or the next public order disturbance will be the responsibility of those who know it all. Let there be no doubt about that; future problems have been accepted by the Government and their supporters.
Today we have heard a lot about Lord Justice Taylor. We have been told that we should leave it all to the FMA. The proposition that Parliament should allow any outside body to enact legislation that affects the civil liberties and the public safety of our people is absolutely monstrous. It


is quite scandalous that we should allow that. The Opposition are certainly not prepared to do that. We are not prepared to say of the Football Membership Authority, even were it the repository of all wisdom—which even Conservative Members doubt—that Parliament has the right to pass legislative powers to such an outside body, over which it has no control. That is what Ministers are doing.
Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry was set up after the death of 96 people and the serious injury to several hundred others at Hillsborough. He has had the most harrowing experience of listening to that terrible evidence, and he now has to decide on the matters and make recommendations. Any intelligent parliamentarian would wish to take account of his findings and what he had to say.
Let us consider the list of issues to be considered. I told the Committee that I had identified 16 issues that Lord Justice Taylor—[Interruption.] I am sorry if the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) thinks that this is an opportunity for yet another of his cheap gibes.
I have been told by some of my police friends that I was 50 per cent. out, and that 31 or 32 issues had been raised. Let the House think for a moment about the seriousness of these issues, because it is now deciding to pass this Bill without considering them. The list includes the following: crowd control outside the game and the surges of masses of people in a short period; how one controls the entry of 30,000 or more people at the turnstile; who is in charge of a football match—the police officer on duty or the football authority promoting the match; whether the police need more powers.
The list includes the issue of the effect of alcoholic consumption in circumstances such as those at Hillsborough, the fences round the field and how many people were killed at the fences at Hillsborough because they could not escape on to the pitch. If the scheme becomes reality, we must consider the extra time needed to process the card at the turnstile.
In Committee the Minister told us that the additional time needed to process one of these cards was 0·06 of a second per person. Such ludicrous futility! I timed myself using the smart card which the Minister favoured. I came up to the machine, put the card down, waited for the light to shine, and picked up the card. That process took 20 seconds. If 20 seconds were added to the passage of every one of the thousand people standing in the queue, the additional time needed for the queue to pass through the turnstile would be about half an hour, which would add to the aggravation. We want to hear about that issue.
Other issues which should be considered include the video and loudspeaker systems and the total lack of co-ordination of the emergency services at Hillsborough. All these matters are of the greatest importance and require the judgment of Solomon. We are not even to be allowed to know the judgment of Lord Justice Taylor. That is the proposition which the Government put before us
We are proceeding with this Bill in a vacuum. These matters have been raised and Lord Justice Taylor finished hearing evidence only last Friday. We are told that we must proceed, the Government know best, and members of the Football Membership Authority—made up of football administrators who have been castigated by the

Government and in Committee—are the very people to be charged with carrying out the football membership scheme. We are not prepared to accept that.
My hon. Friends who do not sit on the Committee, and even some who do, have not yet had the opportunity to consider amendment No. 50, which, I think, is the next to come up in Committee. The amendment proposes that the football membership scheme must include such provision
in relation to the admission of spectators to the premises, as the Secretary of State may specify in writing".
This Secretary of State—

Mr. Ashton: He might not be here tomorrow.

Mr. Howell: That may be true.
This Secretary of State has never been to a football match in his life, but is placing powers in the Bill so that he and his successors, without coming back to the House or Committee, can lay down the law about what has to be written into this scheme and this Bill.
The guillotine motion provides us with about another three or three and a half days of sitting twice a day in Committee. That means only one day for the scheme and licensing system, one day for the all-seater stadium—a subject which we have not yet even reached—and public safety, one day for part II of the Bill, which deals with offenders from overseas—which we have not discussed yet and which was hardly discussed in another place—and half a day for the rest of the business.
In the light of Hillsborough and the criminality which is called hooliganism, Parliament has one overriding duty in this matter, and that is to get the Bill right this time. By this guillotine motion, Her Majesty's Government deny that obligation to get it right. This is a high-risk policy of great irresponsibility, and we shall vote against it tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): We have heard a succession of predictable speeches from Opposition Members. Parties favour timetable motions in appropriate cases when they are in power because they need them to get their business through. But, of course, they oppose them when in opposition. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, the Labour party never hesitated to introduce timetable motions during those far-off days when it was in office.
There is no case for all the anger which we have witnessed about this motion. It is essential that we see the Bill on the statute book this Session—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] We must take steps now to tackle the continuing problem of hooliganism and violence which is ruining football—that is why. We must enable genuine supporters to go to game in safety and return home in safety—that is why. I do not want to be for ever talking about the need for 5,000 police officers on football duties every Saturday. We want to see the day when those living and working in the vicinity of the football ground no longer dread match days. In response to the interventions of Opposition Members, those are good reasons.
By enacting the legislation this Session we can ensure that the framework for a national membership scheme, and the means of preventing convicted hooligans from travelling to matches abroad, are in place. We can then move on rapidly with the scheme, if Parliament agrees that we should do so in the light of Lord Justice Taylor's report on the Hillsborough disaster. If the Bill is to reach the


statute book this Session, we need to complete the Committee stage far faster than we will if we continue with our present progress. This timetable motion will enable us to do so and to proceed with the Bill in an orderly and sensible fashion.
We have heard much, just as we did on Second Reading and in Committee, about how wrong it would be to anticipate Lord Justice Taylor. I entirely agree. It would be wrong for me to speculate on the timing or the content of his report. His is an independent inquiry and his report is a matter for him. If he should comment on the national membership scheme, it is right that Parliament should decide whether to proceed with the scheme, in the light of his comments. The amendments that we made to the Bill in another place will provide Parliament with the opportunity to make that decision at the appropriate time—after we have seen his final report. Indeed, Parliament will have two such opportunities; the first before the Football Membership Authority is appointed and the second after the detailed technical scheme has been submitted to the Secretary of State for approval.
Much has been made of why we thought it important for the football authorities to be involved in the preparation of the scheme and appointed as a central part of the Football Membership Authority. We regard that as an important way forward. It is welcomed by the football authorities, which wrote to the Secretary of State requesting first refusal. It was right and proper in the proceedings of the Committee that hon. Members on both sides should point out that it may benefit the running of the scheme and the Football Membership Authority if it is strengthened by outsiders and possibly even by an independent chairman.
We agree with this proposal, which is why amendments have been tabled in Committee. But there is no case for delaying the Bill until we have Lord Justice Taylor's report. Part I provided a framework for the national membership scheme; it does not introduce the scheme. If we have that framework on the statute book and Parliament decides to proceed with the scheme when it has seen what Lord Justice Taylor has to say, we can have the scheme in place during the season that begins in August 1990.
If we were to delay, we would throw away the progress that we have made this Session. We might have a new Act of Parliament by August 1990, but it is unlikely that the scheme would be in place for another year after that.

Mr. Lester: If Lord Justice Taylor's report in any way questions the framework that we are rushing through the House, how will the Government react?

Mr. Moynihan: As I have told my hon. Friend on many occasions, rather than pontificate about hypothetical circumstances it is right and proper that the House should consider in detail what Lord Justice Taylor says. In that way it will be able to make a proper judgment of the arguments on which he reached his conclusions. To hypothesise about what he might say, when we have provided in the Bill that Parliament should decide on the merits of what he says before we ask for a Football Membership Authority to be established and to start work—let alone before we have a scheme to consider—cannot be right. So my hon. Friend's question is redundant.

Mr. George Howarth: Apart from the technical defects in the Minister's argument, does he realise that the failure to wait for the conclusions of the Taylor report will show the Government to be acting with stunning insensitivity, particularly on Merseyside?

Mr. Moynihan: I reject that view on the following grounds. It was because of the need to respond sensitively that the progress of the Bill was delayed. It was because of the same need that we proposed amendments in their Lordships' House to take full account of what Lord Justice Taylor states. It was because of that need that we now have a different Bill from the one that we had before Hillsborough. We shall have the opportunity when the full Taylor report is before the House to consider in detail whether we should establish a Football Membership Authority and set up a scheme—

Mr. Dobson: If, as the hon. Gentleman claims, the Government amended the Bill in the Lords so that safety considerations could be dealt with, why was it necessary for the Government to pass an instruction to the Committee to enable it to consider safety? Without it, safety would have been out of order.

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman surprises me. When we were just discussing the national membership scheme—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) keeps saying, "No, no, no." He should listen to the point that I am making and learn that there is a clear distinction in the Bill between proposals for a national membership scheme and the separate and important measures on safety.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes our response to his suggestion that the Committee should be instructed to consider matters related to safety. If he carefully considers the amendments tabled last week he will find that they are enabling amendments to allow the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary to take account of any measures on safety that Lord Justice Taylor may recommend and with which the House agrees. The House will have the chance to consider whether it wants to use the enabling framework on safety and on the anti-hooligan measures—the national membership scheme—to implement recommendations. That must be the right way to proceed.
This way combines two important elements: first, the Government's deep desire to rid football of the hooligan element and to make sure that appropriate action is taken against the hooligans who have besmirched our national game; secondly, it ensures that we are capable of responding swiftly to the Taylor recommendations, whether on safety or on hooliganism, with which the House and their Lordships agree.
During the Committee's first two sittings Opposition Members spent most of their time on the same subject on which they had laboured on Second Reading—the timing of the Bill in relation to Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster. That is why I have spoken at length on this point. The Committee has now sat for 37 hours and reached clause 5. Its first sitting was on Tuesday 4 July, and it was entirely devoted to debating the sittings motion for two and a half hours. Two hours of the second sitting were taken up with the order of consideration, during which I made the only speech from the Government side. There were four and a half hours of


debate before even the first amendment was reached. When we finally reached it, we heard a remarkable series of interventions by Opposition Members.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) made the same point that supporters of a club such as Tranmere might also want to attend matches in which Liverpool and Everton were playing—not once or twice, but four times. I hope that all Opposition Members realise that all that is required to visit any of the 92 grounds is one card.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) regaled the Committee at length with the history of his schooling, not once but twice. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), speaking to an amendment to restrict the scheme to divisions 1 and 2, spoke of the lack of a football club in Croydon, of the closure of Sheffield's nightclubs, of lager louts at the Notting Hill carnival, Trafalgar square and the coast, and of his experiences of dodging rail fares during national service.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) today displayed a staggering ignorance of the contents of the Bill and of the measures that the Government have already taken. He said that we had done nothing in the past four years, studiously ignoring the introduction of closed-circuit television—

Mr. Denis Howell: rose—

Mr. Moynihan: —and the important agreement between the FA, the League and the Government. It was written into the agreement reached in February 1987 and which we have had to push and push and push

Mr. Howell: rose—

Mr. Moynihan: —to ensure that football clubs up and down the country introduce it. The right hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that we had to sit down—

Mr. Howell: rose—

Mr. Moynihan: I have one minute left. The hon. Gentleman should consider the work done on closed-circuit television and on police segregation at the instigation of this Government. There is also better police co-ordination.

Mr. Howell: rose—

Mr. Moynihan: The right hon. Gentleman is blind to the steps that have been taken, and it is a great shame that he and his hon. Friends in Committee have not begun to address the issues that are relevant to the future of football. It is appalling that he has underestimated the vital work that is needed.

Question put

The House divided: Ayes 327, Noes 221.

Division No. 299]
[7.28 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Aspinwall, Jack


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkins, Robert


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Allason, Rupert
Baldry, Tony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Amess, David
Batiste, Spencer


Amos, Alan
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Arbuthnot, James
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Ashby, David
Bevan, David Gilroy





Biffen, Rt Hon John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Body, Sir Richard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gorst, John


Boswell, Tim
Gow, Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Ground, Patrick


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hannam, John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Buck, Sir Antony
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Budgen, Nicholas
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Christopher


Butcher, John
Hayes, Jerry


Butterfill, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hayward, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carrington, Matthew
Heddle, John


Carttiss, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James


Chope, Christopher
Hind, Kenneth


Churchill, Mr
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Holt, Richard


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howard, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cope, Rt Hon John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Couchman, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cran, James
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Critchley, Julian
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Curry, David
Irvine, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Irving, Charles


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert


Devlin, Tim
Janman, Tim


Dorrell, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Eggar, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Key, Robert


Evennett, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fallon, Michael
Knapman, Roger


Farr, Sir John
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Favell, Tony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Knowles, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lang, Ian


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lawrence, Ivan


Forman, Nigel
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forth, Eric
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lightbown, David


Franks, Cecil
Lilley, Peter


Freeman, Roger
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


French, Douglas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gale, Roger
Lord, Michael


Gardiner, George
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Gill, Christopher
McCrindle, Robert






Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Maclean, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shaw, David (Dover)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb)


Major, Rt Hon John
Shelton, Sir William


Malins, Humfrey
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Mans, Keith
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maples, John
Shersby, Michael


Marland, Paul
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Marlow, Tony
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Speed, Keith


Mates, Michael
Speller, Tony


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin


Mellor, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Miller, Sir Hal
Steen, Anthony


Mills, Iain
Stern, Michael


Miscampbell, Norman
Stevens, Lewis


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mitchell, Sir David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stokes, Sir John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Sumberg, David


Morrison, Sir Charles
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mudd, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nelson, Anthony
Thorne, Neil


Neubert, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tracey, Richard


Norris, Steve
Trippier, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Trotter, Neville


Oppenheim, Phillip
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Paice, James
Viggers, Peter


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Patnick, Irvine
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walden, George


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Portillo, Michael
Ward, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Price, Sir David
Warren, Kenneth


Raffan, Keith
Wells, Bowen


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wheeler, John


Rathbone, Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Redwood, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Renton, Tim
Wilkinson, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wilshire, David


Riddick, Graham
Wolfson, Mark


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rossi, Sir Hugh



Rost, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowe, Andrew
Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Tom Sackville.


Rumbold, Mrs Angela



Ryder, Richard





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Anderson, Donald


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Allen, Graham
Armstrong, Hilary


Alton, David
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack





Ashton, Joe
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Grocott, Bruce


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Hardy, Peter


Barron, Kevin
Harman, Ms Harriet


Beckett, Margaret
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Heffer, Eric S.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hinchliffe, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Blair, Tony
Home Robertson, John


Blunkett, David
Hood, Jimmy


Boateng, Paul
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Boyes, Roland
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bradley, Keith
Howells, Geraint


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Buckley, George J.
Illsley, Eric


Caborn, Richard
Ingram, Adam


Callaghan, Jim
Janner, Greville


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Kennedy, Charles


Cartwright, John
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kirkwood, Archy


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lambie, David


Clay, Bob
Lamond, James


Clelland, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Litherland, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Livingstone, Ken


Coleman, Donald
Livsey, Richard


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Loyden, Eddie


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAllion, John


Cousins, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Crowther, Stan
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cryer, Bob
McFall, John


Cummings, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McKelvey, William


Cunningham, Dr John
McLeish, Henry


Dalyell, Tam
Maclennan, Robert


Darling, Alistair
McNamara, Kevin


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McWilliam, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dewar, Donald
Marek, Dr John


Dixon, Don
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dobson, Frank
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Doran, Frank
Martlew, Eric


Douglas, Dick
Maxton, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Meacher, Michael


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Meale, Alan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michael, Alun


Eadie, Alexander
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fatchett, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fisher, Mark
Morgan, Rhodri


Flannery, Martin
Morley, Elliott


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foster, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Fraser, John
Nellist. Dave


Fyfe, Maria
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Galloway, George
O'Brien, William


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


George, Bruce
Parry, Robert


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Patchett, Terry


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Pendry, Tom


Gordon, Mildred
Pike, Peter L.


Gould, Bryan
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Graham, Thomas
Prescott, John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Primarolo, Dawn






Quin, Ms Joyce
Spearing, Nigel


Radice, Giles
Steel, Rt Hon David


Randall, Stuart
Steinberg, Gerry


Redmond, Martin
Stott, Roger


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Straw, Jack


Richardson, Jo
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Robertson, George
Turner, Dennis


Robinson, Geoffrey
Vaz, Keith


Rogers, Allan
Wallace, James


Rooker, Jeff
Walley, Joan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Wareing, Robert N.


Rowlands, Ted
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Ruddock, Joan
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Salmond, Alex
Wigley, Dafydd


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wilson, Brian


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Winnick, David


Short, Clare
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)



Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.


Snape, Peter



Soley, Clive

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Committee

1. The proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall be brought to a conclusion at or before 1 p.m. on 27th July 1989, and the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on or before that day.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day, and on that day—

(a) the proceedings on consideration shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock; and
(b) the proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill not later than the third day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further Report so made whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or that Motion is made by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to he concluded;
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a


Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplememting the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Football Spectators Bill [Lords];
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Orders of the Day — Antarctic Minerals Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

GENERAL. PROHIBITION

Mr. Donald Anderson: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 12 at end insert
', and nationals and bodies incorporated under the laws of any colony, dependent territory or overseas territory for whose international relations the United Kingdom is responsible'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 3, in page 1, line 13 leave out subsection (3).
No. 10, in clause 2, page 2, line 14, leave out from 'below' to 'State' in line 15.
No. 11, in page 2, line 17 leave out 'the Crown or another Contracting State'.
No. 12, in page 2, leave out lines 24 and 25.

Mr. Anderson: The nature of the problem is clear and was discussed in Committee. The ecosystem in the Antarctic is a unique and fragile system that needs to be protected. However, there is a danger, if minerals are to be researched, prospected and exploited, that international and multinational companies will take advantage of every possible loophole, including changing their place of registration. If the dependent territories of the United Kingdom are granted rights in the Bill, they should have corresponding and consequential obligations.
We proposed a similar amendment in Committee, when the Government replied that it was possible to extend coverage of the obligations to the dependent territories by the Order in Council procedure, and it was their intention so to do. They argued that this procedure was adopted by convention, and that it was only a matter of courtesy to those territories that it was adopted.
However, it is possible to extend jurisdiction directly to any territory for which we are responsible, and there are a number of precedents for doing it that way rather than by an Order in Council. We believe that this is a matter of some urgency, which demands a commitment from the Government. If there were to be an accident, there would be a major liability on us. As to the courtesies, it was possible for the Government, since the convention was signed in Wellington in June of last year, to have consulted each of the relevant territories, explained the importance of the matter and informed them that on this occasion, because of the special factors involved, it was their intention to apply the convention directly to the territories rather than by the Order in Council procedure.
I hope that the Minister will recognise the dangers that could arise. He and I remember, during the Iran-Iraq war, how easy it was, when ships were under threat in the strait of Hormuz, for them to take on a British dependent territory registration so as to come under the protection of the Armilla patrol. That illustrates how easily people can flow from one area to another when it suits their


commercial interests. The danger is there. We hope that the Government will see that our amendments are a proper safeguard against that danger, and will accept them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): As the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said, this matter was debated at some length in Committee. As I said then, the amendments would breach the constitutional convention by which, when we extend international obligations to our dependent territories, we consult them about how this might best be done, rather than instruct them. I said that it was rather curious to find Labour Members arguing for what one might call the imperialist position.

Mr. Anderson: There is nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Eggar: I shall store that one up for future use.
I assure the House that there will be no loophole. I can give a categorical assurance that nationals and bodies incorporated under the laws of any British colony will be obliged to comply with the Bill and with the convention.

Mr. Anderson: Can the Minister give any timetable or target date by which he hopes that the Bill will be extended to all dependent territories?

Mr. Eggar: We shall seek to proceed in a timely manner. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill will be extended by the time that the convention comes into force.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 2

EXCEPTION FOR PROSPECTING ACTIVITIO

Mr. Anderson: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 31, after 'activities', insert
'means activities for the purposes of further scientific investigation which do not cause damage to the Antarctic environment or dependent or associated ecosystems and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 23, in page 3, line 16, clause 3, after 'damage', insert
to the Antarctic environment or dependent or associated ecosystems'.
No. 34, in page 4, line 28, clause 7, at end add
'and especially if there is any risk of environmental damage'.
No. 36, in page 4, line 36, clause 8, at end add
'among whom shall be individuals nominated by either or both national or international organisations which have standing in the field of environmental protection.'

Mr. Anderson: The lead amendment, No. 14, attempts narrowly to redefine "prospecting". The House will recall that the essence of the Bill is to allow only prospecting and to set out a new series of procedures before any country or licensee can proceed to the next stages of development and exploitation of any mineral resources that may be found. We are seeking to redefine prospecting and to distinguish it from existing scientific research. The key word is "further". We seek to limit prospecting to scientific investigations. Thus, prospectors would be able to undertake only activities that have a sound and purely scientific basis and are of a nature that is not damaging to the Antarctic environment.
"Damage" is to be interpreted according to the convention, and is defined in article 1(15) of the convention:

'Damage to the Antarctic environment or dependent or associated ecosystems' means any impact on the living or non-living components of that environment or those ecosystems, including harm to atmospheric, marine or terrestrial life beyond, that which is negligible or which has been assessed and judged to be acceptable pursuant to this Convention.
We accept that, even under the limits of current scientific investigations, there can be grey areas. We are not always certain exactly who pays for the scientific investigations and what their motives are in so paying. We have discussed definitions in Committee, however, and we have made it clear that there should be definitions of what is permitted and what is prohibited. In our judgment, the Bill should be self-contained. Any definition should arise from the convention and not from definitions in other domestic legislation in the United Kingdom.
Amendment No. 23 widens the definition of damage to include damage to the environment and ecosystems. We seek to move away from the purely commercial definition of damage, such as loss of profits, in this peculiarly sensitive area.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Are the Government in a position to give the House any scientific advice on this issue? Is it their view that the ecosystem will necessarily be damaged in all circumstances if minerals are found? As I understand it, there has been mining at Spitzbergen for decades without great effect on the ecosystem there. I shall be interested to know the facts that are available to the Minister.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I shall take a little longer than my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), partly because two of the amendments, Nos. 34 and 36, stand in my name. I tabled those amendments and others because I share the view expressed by Greenpeace, that the Bill is fatally flawed. I deeply regret that the British position is not the one that has been adopted by France and Australia. I am delighted that France and Australia have taken what I believe is the only independent position that the civilised world could take.
If the House had been debating the extension of the deserts 25 years ago, I believe that it would have taken the same attitude as it appears to be taking to the Antarctic this evening. If, 15 years ago, the House had been talking about the destruction of tropical forests, it would probably have taken the same attitude as many hon. Members are taking to the Antarctic now. In the past three or four decades we have seen the destruction of large parts of our planet with consequences that only now are beginning to be accepted. Indeed, the summit meeting could find agreement only by suggesting that there should be research before it is too late. That is the position on global warming. We have had sufficient experience over the past two or three generations to understand that we should approach ecosystems as large, substantial, attractive and important as that of the Antarctic with rather more sensitivity than the Government have displayed.
I do not always agree with every organisation in the environment lobby, but in this instance I agree wholeheartedly with Greenpeace. I deeply regret that the Government must stand high on the list of the culpable. The Government have reacted far too late to past despoliation and they should be a great deal more careful before they run the risk of seeing an important part of our planet destroyed. I know that the Minister made some relevant comments in Committee, but I hope that he will


spell out on Report—[Interruption.] I note that the Minister is amused. I am glad that he finds this issue amusing. He should understand that some of us find it an extremely serious matter.
I ask the Minister to respond to the latest batch of questions which Greenpeace has sent to hon. Members. For example, who will ensure compliance with the convention? Who will ensure compliance with the convention in the area of the Antarctic whose ownership is disputed by the United Kingdom, Chile and Argentina? Do we supervise the Chileans? Do the Argentines supervise us? Who will accept responsibility? If development follows the arrangement that is before us, someone will have to accept responsibility to ensure that devastation does not take place.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: How can we trust the Government when they have given away Hong Kong?

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is right. I remind the Minister that I am accustomed to hearing fine-sounding words from denizens of the Government Front Bench, but I am still angry that on 16 January, when I stood on King's Cross station applauding the Prime Minister—

Mr. Skinner: Did my hon. Friend do that?

Mr. Hardy: I did. I know that my hon. Friend will be surprised. I stood on King's Cross station on the centenary of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Those who were gathered there were addressed by the Prime Minister, who made the most heartening speech. She called for the protection of hills, wetlands, the coast, lakes, rivers and hedgerows. I left that meeting to come to the House to present, with all-party support and with the blessing of every conservation body in Britain, a Bill to protect our significant hedgerows. A Government Whip blocked that Bill.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has told us that he went all the way to King's Cross to cheer the Prime Minister. Is that the same Prime Minister who supported the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1988, a Bill that we tried to stop night after night? We argued that it would destroy an area in which lovely little birds—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Bill is about the Antarctic. Let us return to the Antarctic.

Mr. Skinner: I am talking about a Bill that will damage the environment at Felixstowe. That environment will be destroyed by the Government, who pushed the Bill through. I say to my hon. Friend: judge people by what they do, not by what they say.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend must recognise that I was brought up as nonconformist and I always rejoice when the sinner comes to repentence. I thought that the right hon. Lady had done so. I was heartened because I thought that it gave hope for Antarctica as well as for the English hedgerows. Imagine my distress when the Government blocked that Bill; imagine my anger when I wrote to the right hon. Lady saying that she had blocked that Bill, which was presented on the very day that she had called for hedgerows to be protected. One passage from her reply will ever stick in my mind. She said that we have to think

about other things as well as conservation—as though she had not always thought about things other than conservation.
8 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) was with me on that memorable occasion and shared my pleasure at the right hon. Lady's speech and my disappointment when my Bill was blocked. I speak today from an experience that makes me intensely suspicious of the Government's attitude—a suspicion increasingly shared in Britain by all the green organisations. They are right to be suspicious, as they are right to ask questions. The Minister will be aware of the questions posed by Greenpeace in its latest missive to hon. Members, and I trust that when he replies he will give answers which, although they might reassure trusting, docile Conservative Members, will also be sufficiently powerful to persuade my hon. Friends and I.
The Government say, "We will ban exploration and ban exploitation, but we will not stop prospecting." That is ridiculous. The Minister may have read cowboy books or watched western films when he was a little boy. He may imagine that a prospector is a hoary old man riding on a mule with a backpack of beans and dried bacon, hoping to extract a few bits of rock with a hammer and a shovel and so discover gold.

Mr. Tony Banks: Sounds like Nicholas Ridley.

Mr. Hardy: That description applies to a number of Conservative Ministers.
Modern prospecting is a different kettle of fish. Prospectors have high academic qualifications; they have some understanding of the use of explosives; they can drill—

Mr. Skinner: Yuppie prospectors.

Mr. Hardy: They are indeed the yuppie prospectors that my hon. Friend conjures up in his mind.
We are not talking about people with little hammers who chip off bits of rock; we are talking about people who could easily perpetrate an enormous amount of damage to an area, which our colleagues in Australia and France believe, as I do, should be a world reserve, and not subject to destruction by whatever interest group thinks that it can play ducks and drakes with an administration that does not have a record of constancy.
I want to know whether the Minister will answer all the questions posed by Greenpeace. How will we avoid the worst implementers of legislation being those with responsibility for implementation? Will the least competent administrations in the world be relied upon to interpret the regulations to protect Antarctica? Will we leave that attractive and important area to the mercy of the incompetent, the greedy, the feckless and the irresponsible? Will we leave it to those interests that have already destroyed the tropical forests and allowed the deserts to expand at an astonishing rate over the past 30 years?
Someone has to be concerned about the environment, because life must survive on this planet for a long time. I do not know whether it is appropriate to discuss the ecology of Antarctica on this group of amendments, or whether I should leave it until we discuss the next group.

Mr. Eggar: Leave it.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman prefers me not to mention the subject at all. If you think that it should be left until the next debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be happy to comply with your wishes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned another reason for speaking in this debate—the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1988. Every Conservative Member voted to break an international commitment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can talk about ecosystems in Antarctica, but not Felixstowe.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise the citing of examples in passing during a speech. The Bill involves the administration of an area. If the Government support a particular system and a particular piece of legislation, surely it is necessary to point out their inconsistencies in previous legislation to show that they cannot be trusted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Of course it is in order for hon. Members to draw analogies, but it is not in order for them to give a detailed description of them. I was advising the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) against doing that.

Mr. Hardy: I am happy to accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My only reason for referring to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act was as a lead to discussing the Ramsar convention, an international agreement to which Britain was a principal signatory. To comply with the terms of that convention, Britain identified three or four sites in the British Isles that it pledged to the remainder of the world would be protected unless it be necessary to do otherwise because of the most grave and serious national predicament or interest. We selected the Orwell estuary for permanent protection, and said that it could never be touched other than in the most dire national extremity. Along came some people, aided and abetted by a few Conservative Members who smelt the possibility of making a bit of money, and the Ramsar convention went through the window, just as the Prime Minister's commitment to the British countryside went through the window.
The Government must understand that growing numbers of people in Britain, and throughout our planet, want them to act with a little more wisdom than thay have shown in this legislation. I refer the House to a letter to hon. Members from Sir Peter Scott. I received my copy this morning. I do not know which political party Sir Peter supports, but I know that for many years—as some Conservative Members will appreciate—he has played a more active part than any other living human being in promoting the conservation of our planet. He has a particular knowledge of Antarctica, so the House should be aware of the letter written by that distinguished, experienced British citizen, who has given great international service. Sir Peter said:
Many assurances have been given that this is an `environmental bill'. However its primary concern is minerals exploitation, not the environment and its effect will be to facilitate the exploitation and almost inevitable despoliation of Antarctica.
Concern for the protection of the environment is increasing both nationally and globally. Both Australia and France have declared that they will not sign CRAMRA, rather they would like to see Antarctica designated as a `Wilderness Park' I applaud their bold initiative and sincerely

believe that a Wilderness Park, with a permanent moratorium on minerals exploitation, is the only way to ensure that the Antarctic wilderness is really protected. Having been lo the Antarctic five times, including visits to my father's huts and to the South Pole, I have first hand knowledge of the potential vulnerability of the area.
I refer also to some very interesting comments in a book by Sir Edmund Hillary. Like Sir Peter Scott, he is a distinguished person who is familiar with the most far-flung corners of our planet.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend quoted Sir Peter Scott's remark that he is so dissatisfied with the Bill that he urges right hon. and hon. Members to vote against it. If we are really concerned about environmental protection, we must take Sir Peter's recommendation seriously into account.

Mr. Hardy: I hope that we shall act on Sir Peter's advice. Such advice from a man of Sir Peter's standing should be taken seriously. I have served on a number of national and international conservation bodies over a long period, so I have met Sir Peter occasionally and know of his record. I am aware of no other occasion on which he has given such advice. When such advice comes from a man who in the past has stood away from party politics, it should be taken very seriously.
I also take seriously the advice of Sir Edmund Hillary. I remind right hon. and hon. Members of his contribution in flying the British flag at the summit of Mount Everest in coronation year, and of crossing Antarctica. Sir Edmund Hillary writes about his visit to McMurdo sound in 1982, when the talk was about mineral resources and krill farming. There was very little talk in the relevant circles about protecting the environment and an area of the world that he acknowledges as superbly beautiful. Sir Edmund Hillary comments in his book "Ecology 2000" that he dreads the thought of drilling and of the risk that Lt would pose to the Antarctic. He dreads the inevitable risk of inadequate supervision and of the lack of any control or protection of the environment. Sir Edmund Hillary observes that such activities would destroy a significant part of our environmental inheritance.
In his book, Sir Edmund reminds us that the water in Antarctica has been frozen for 200,000 years. He notes that the pockets of air trapped in that water contain half the level of carbon dioxide that is to be found in the air that we currently breathe. There are many lessons to be learned from Antarctica.
No one is suggesting that we should ignore the lessons that Antarctica can teach us. The Opposition amendments merely seek to ensure that Antarctica will not be destroyed or at least disfigured before those lessons can be learned. I have no objection to the scientific establishments in Antarctica that have fulfilled a useful role there for some time, for their activities are quite a different matter from unleashing the forces of commercial exploitation. It is that which we fear most. The fear of commercial exploitation and of the consequences that it could bring led me to table my two amendments.
Amendment No. 34 would amend clause 7 by adding at the end the words
and especially if there is any risk of environmental damage.
That amendment is perfectly reasonable. It represents a compromise. I do not like the Bill at all, but the Government could at least make a gesture to people who are concerned about the environment by adding the words that I suggest, as a way of reassuring environmentalists and of warning off the greedy whose depredations we fear.
Amendment No. 36 to clause 8 is also wholly reasonable. If there is to be an advisory committee, as there should be, the individuals who comprise it should be capable of giving proper advice. They should not necessarily be members of the Conservative party. Far too many Conservative placemen who have been appointed to such advisory bodies in recent years believe that their job is to tell the Government what they want to hear. The advisory committee should instead be comprised of individuals who are prepared to eschew lickspittling.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the governors of the Nature Conservancy Council, which is supposed to be responsible for protecting nature, have appointed a master of foxhounds? How can we have confidence in the Government when they allow an appointment such as that?

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend speaks with considerable knowledge of such matters, as the Minister said. Perhaps we should not tread on the topic of quangos. In 1979, the Government declared that they would abolish quangos but then decided that if they could not beat them, they should join them. Governments should be able to obtain independent advice from people who know what they are talking about—not from people who seek to please the Government with comfortable words.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Does my hon. Friend agree that all the undertakings that were made to prevent the exploitation of Alaska did not stop the Exxon disaster earlier this year? Even though promises and undertakings about environmental protection, consultation, and emergency action to clear up pollution were given, they proved worthless. A disaster occurred because the companies operating in Alaska are there not for any philanthropic reasons connected with understanding the environment but to exploit and destroy it. Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, although his amendments are important, companies would ignore such provisions and continue to destroy the environment?

Mr. Hardy: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. But if the Government use their majority, as they will, to ensure that the Bill becomes law, the least that we can do is to incorporate in the legislation a damage limitation—if only so that should such a tragedy occur in Antarctica, we shall be able to say, "We told you so." That would give further encouragement to those who already recognise that the Government's service to the environment is grossly unsatisfactory.

Ms. Primarolo: The company that markets Exxon products in this country is Esso. Its current advertising campaign, which features a barrage balloon, promotes unleaded petrol and uses the phrase "Caring for your future". Yet both Exxon and Esso have shown that they do not care at all about our future but only about their own profits.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend may be unaware that I am particularly concerned about environmental matters. For the past three years, I have served as chairman of the Council of Europe's environment committee. During that

time, the committee has taken a number of initiatives with regard to marine pollution. It is sad that calls from my committee, from the European Parliament, and from committees of other national legislatures are ignored.
The scale of that disdain was shown in Alaska. The part of Alaska in which the oil spillage occurred is remote, difficult to reach and a long way from centres skilled in harbour and coastal protection. If that part of Alaska is far from the reservoirs of support, how far away from them is a part of the world a good deal south of the Antarctic circle? There would be no guarantee, which is why it is essential that those people should at least be in a position to tell the Government what is needed. We should be able to exercise a very critical role if the Government ignore the resulting evidence; the Government, of course, might find it possible to appoint to the committee people who would be prepared to speak out should their advice be ignored, but we need to be sure that that advice will be tendered and officially and formally received.
In the absence of such advisers, the Government would be able to say, "We did not know; we were not told." I should like to remove any possibility of such an excuse: hence the amendment, which I hope my hon. Friends will support unless the Government are prepared to accept it. I do not consider it unreasonable, although my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) was somewhat critical because her hostility to the Bill is more root and branch.

Mr. Skinner: During the economic summit, the Prime Minister has been gallivanting around Europe, spending taxpayers' money and indulging in parties and binges. Apparently, between bouts of sipping claret and Beaujolais, all those countries got together and decided to set up a 10-point plan for the environment. I find it a bit odd that the same Government, headed by the same Prime Minister, should not be prepared to accept my hon. Friend's amendment.
My hon. Friend should remind the Minister that he may not be in his job much longer. There is going to be a big reshuffle, and he has not been sparking on every plug, has he? He has a chance of being kicked out. The course that should appeal to him is to adopt the 10-point plan and accept my hon. Friend's amendment. To do otherwise would be hypocritical, in view of all the great plans that were made at the summit.

Mr. Hardy: The 10-point plan seems very strong on investigation and very weak on action. We have seen a good deal of investigation. I have been making speeches in the House for 15 years about the need to protect the environment, and on occasion after occasion have presented evidence to justify my arguments. In a small way I have contributed to the pursuit of the learning in which the Government have now agreed to engage. It is a form of paradox. The other day—I think that this is relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I attended a meeting with Lech Walesa, and I asked him a question.

Mr. Skinner: He is a Catholic shop steward.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend's description, although less than generous, may be reasonably accurate.
I asked Lech Walesa, "Are you familiar with a development that we watch in western Europe? Are you familiar with the phenomenon of western leaders visiting your country and saying one thing there and something


entirely different when they return to their own countries?" Lech Walesa does not speak English, but he stuck his thumb up and gave me a broad grin. Over the headphones I heard the interpreter say, "Mr. Walesa says yes, and now he is going to talk about paradoxes as well."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is on the wrong Pole.

Mr. Hardy: I shall now return—in a southerly direction—to the appropriate latitude, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I could not resist the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who was, to some extent, leading me astray; I now return to relevance. I could not, however, overlook the fact that we were discussing a strange paradox. The Paris summit has been celebrating the French revolution: I only wish that it had met 200 years earlier for, as I am sure some of my hon. Friends will agree, I think that 1789 would have been a more appropriate date for such a gathering than 1989.

Mr. Tony Banks: They might have chopped her head off.

Mr. Hardy: I had always thought that my hon. Friend was opposed to capital punishment.

Mr. Banks: I make exceptions.

Mr. Hardy: The House is being offered reasonable amendments. If the Government wish to retain any vestige of consistency between their words and their actions, they have no alternative but to take a generous attitude. I do not think that I need say more; the case that we have advanced is utterly convincing, and I trust that the Minister's reply will be acceptable to us.

Mr. Morley: I wish to concentrate exclusively on amendment No. 14, which deals with the definition of exploration. Clause 2 of the Bill provides that
'prospecting activities' includes field observations".
There is no problem there; field observations are not particularly damaging, although if large numbers of people set up bases in the area that in itself could be damaging. We discussed that in Committee. As it stands, the Bill does not appear to limit the number of people who can take part in any kind of prospecting expedition in the Antarctic, with all the associated problems of waste and disturbance.
"Prospecting activities", says clause 2, also include
geological, geochemical and geophysical investigations".
Those are likely to involve the use of drilling rigs. The Bill lays down certain conditions, stating that such activities do not include, for example,
drilling to depths exceeding 25 metres or such other depth as the Commission may determine for particular circumstances".
That would be helpful in certain circumstances, because drilling also involves the risk of dirt and waste and the possible danger of blow-outs, problems associated with the control of machines and the disturbance caused by mud that is used for cooling the machinery—although I imagine that it would not be very difficult to cool machinery in the Antarctic.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend has made a fair point. Cooling material in the Antarctic might not be much of a problem, as for the most part the air is very cold anyway. Is he aware, however, of a serious problem that has occurred in some of the scientific stations

there? If fire breaks out, it is extremely difficult to extinguish it. All the water has, of course, turned to ice, and other forms of fire-fighting equipment are very difficult to use in such extreme temperatures. That is yet another reason for caution. Where fires have broken out in some scientific stations, it has been impossible to put them out and the entire station has had to be allowed to burn out, with considerable consequent pollution.

Mr. Morley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose knowledge of the Antarctic is considerable. He has raised an important point. I understand that there has been only one large-scale fire in the Antarctic, but in the event of one we would not know what the effects would be, and fighting it would be extremely difficult, especially if it were associated with an oil rig blow-out. Those are difficult to extinguish even in the most favourable circumstances, and the possibilities in the Antarctic make one shudder.
According to clause 2, prospecting activities also include
the use of remote sensing techniques and the collection of samples".
I am willing to be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong, but I suspect that the use of remote sensing techniques will involve the kind of geological survey that entails setting off an explosive charge. Sensors will be used to read the shock waves and to gain an idea of the geology of the area. I imagine that the Minister would feel somewhat anxious about any proposal to prospect for oil in this country and to set up explosive charges in, for example, Hyde Park for the purposes of establishing the geology of the area.
The Bill permits companies to set up explosive charges without defining or controlling what that will do. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) told us that the ice build-up on the continental shelf is hundreds of thousands of years old. Explosive charges used for geophysical investigations could cause immense permanent irreversible damage and the history locked within the ice would be destroyed forever. The Bill does not contain adequate safeguards against that.
8.30 pm
The Bill defines prospecting activity as "the collection of samples". I give it credit for dealing with
dredging or excavation otherwise than for the purpose of obtaining small-scale samples
I should like a definition of "small-scale". Dredging of the seabed can cause enormous damage of which we may not be aware. We know that the Antarctic seas are an important source of krill and shrimp and therefore the beginning of an important food chain. I am not sure that we understand the possible scientific impact of dredging along the seabed and disturbing it. The Minister may say that the Bill quite clearly deals with "obtaining small-scale samples", but I should like to know the definition of small-scale and how the operations will be defined and controlled.
The Minister should consider amendment No. 14 very carefully. In Committee it was quite clear that there was no difference between the two sides of the House in terms of protecting the sensitive and unique ecology of the Antarctic. I see no reason why the Government cannot accept the amendment. Bearing in mind the fact that the Bill deals with companies under United Kingdom control, the amendment would limit activities for the purpose of investigation to those which did not damage the Antarctic environment. That puts the responsibility on the


companies or individuals who apply for a licence to prospect. The pressure would be on those individuals or companies to demonstrate successfully that their prospecting would not destroy or damage the environment.
There are further safeguards in later amendments, but amendment No. 14 goes to the root of the problem by putting the onus of the people who want to go to Antarctica. It will be up to them to demonstrate that they will cause no damage. I believe that that would be difficult, and that the Government will therefore oppose the amendment, but if we are truly serious about preserving the ecology of the Antarctic, we must accept the amendment and make it clear that people who wish to exploit it must bear the responsibility of demonstrating that whatever they do will not cause ecological damage.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I have listened with considerable interest to the arguments of Opposition Members in support of the amendments. Broadly speaking, I sympathise with the amendments, but there is a distinction between them and what Opposition Members have said about them. The amendments seek to make more certain the controls which are obviously necessary if scientific research continues and a process of prospecting is carried out under strict licensing, which surely must be better than a process carried out without those provisions.
In Committee, the Minister assured us that the Government accepted their responsibilities and would ensure that they would be exercised effectively by the commission. However, hon. Gentleman ought not to give the impression that there is something undesirable about scientific exploration of the Antarctic or of prospecting there. We have had years of statements that there is untold wealth in the Antarctic which could be exploited. As long as we are not sure that just what is there, where it is and what would be the difficulties of seeking to exploit it, we shall hear comments such as those reported to have been made by one political leader: "There is gold in the Antarctic and we want our share".
I do not know whether that is a fair interpretation of what that leader said, but it may represent the attitude of poor Third-world countries which find it much more difficult than relatively wealthy nations to take an objective view of preserving a wilderness and rejecting the opportunity for economic exploitation. If we are asking them to take an attitude similar to ours, we shall have to tell them that scientific exploration and careful prospecting is giving them the information that they require.

Mr. Morley: There is a clear difference between scientific exploration and prospecting, which goes to the heart of the debate. Opposition Members do not object to scientific exploration, although there should be safeguards. The hon. Gentleman says that we need to know what is in Antarctica and that, until we know, there will always be pressure for exploration. There may be some truth in that, but surely the best way of finding out is through various scientific institutions and organisations rather than prospecting, which will be led mainly by multinational corporations which are in it for their own gain rather than for scientific knowledge or for the greater good of the entire community.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I do not disagree with him. Obviously, commercial prospecting is carried out with an eye to some future advantage. But that applies to prospecting whether or not it is licensed. Because there are human frailties and the desire to take advantage of whatever wealth there may be, and perhaps not all countries will take the same view as the Government have taken in the Bill, we need to write in safeguards. I suggest that Opposition Members, in addressing their amendments, should not talk about oil rig blow-outs as the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) did. Nothing in the Bill would permit an oil rig to drill for oil, or a blow-out. Such comments are unhelpful because they refer to something which the Bill would never permit.

Mr. Tony Banks: I shall pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) in his excellent speech. I always knew that my hon. Friend was a great supporter of green issues, but I did not realise that he was quite as green as he reveals himself to be. He was very green if he cheered the Prime Minister and believed what she said about her sudden conversion to environmental issues. In my opinion, the Prime Minister is about as environmentally friendly as bubonic plague.

Mr. Hardy: In my own defence, I got off one platform and got on another, because my train arrived at King's Cross. I was there as a member of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, although I had no part whatsoever in the invitation that was extended to the right hon. Lady to address that gathering.

Mr. Banks: I realise that my hon. Friend has far more good sense than to want to have the Prime Minister there.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Banks: He has far more good sense than to want to have the Prime Minister—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Banks: I will give way to the hon. Lady. I always look forward to her highly constructive, intelligent and perceptive remarks.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Thank you very much. I have in my possession a letter from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister welcoming the formation of the Conservative Conservation Society, which was written in the middle 1970s. My right hon. Friend is by no means a new convert to this concept. As she is a scientist, she knows a great deal more about it than most hon. Members here today.

Mr. Banks: I accept what the hon. Lady says. If the Prime Minister wants to support the Conservative Conservation Society, that is a good thing. Personally, I would be happy to see the Prime Minister stuffed, mounted, put in a glass case and left in a museum, and I look forward politically to that day. The Prime Minister's wandering into King's Cross station was in itself an event—not only because she was there for the anniversary of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, but because that was the closest she has been to a British Rail train for a long time. She does not like travelling on trains and had not travelled on one since February 1987.
It merely goes to show that the Prime Minister is not the best source to quote when talking about the environment or the sincerity with which she holds views about the environment, in which we have suddenly found her so interested. Like many other Conservative Members, she realises that there are votes here. They are green if they believe that we are so green as to believe that the conversion of the Prime Minister or the Conservative party is genuine.
Through the Bill, the Conservative Government are once again supporting the interests of the great mineral developers and prospectors. That is what the Bill is all about. We shall come later to the philosophy behind the Bill, but I will point out now that the Minister is saying in effect that there will be exploitation of the Antarctic. Rather than trying to stop that happening, he says that we should try to regulate that exploitation. He says, "Let us have it exploited, but let us do it on our terms."
Amendment No. 14 seeks to probe how genuine the Government and the Minister are about protecting the Antarctic. If one looks at clause 2(2), one realises that the definitions of "prospecting activities" come from existing mining legislation in this country and not from definitions within the terms of the convention. That is why we are so worried and why we seek to limit the definitions and terminology in clause 2. We want to be certain that there will be genuine protection for the environment.
Amendment No. 14 is specific, referring to
activities for the purposes of further scientific investigation which do not cause damage to the Antarctic environment or dependent or associated ecosystems".
That seems perfectly reasonable and I wait with great interest to hear what the Minister will say about the amendment if he is not prepared to accept it.
So much evil is being done in the world at present under the guise of scientific investigation. One thinks, for example, of the Japanese, who, in the so-called interests of science and scientific whaling, are proposing to slaughter 300 minke whales to find out how large the minke whale population is. I can tell them straight away that it will be 300 less than when their ships started slaughtering the whales. What is happening there—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What has that got to do with amendment No. 14?

Mr. Banks: What is happening there is precisely what will happen in the Antarctic in the name of scientific investigation. There will be commercial exploitation, or a movement towards it, precisely as the Japanese are doing now in whaling. I will say one thing for the Government and Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: he is doing his best to prevent the Japanese from getting away with that blatant commercial exploitation of whales under the guise of scientific investigation. All we are saying is that we do not want the same to happen in the Antarctic.
8.45 pm
As my hon. Friend the Member of Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, field observations are acceptable within limits. However, geological, geochemical and geophysical investigations require far more tightening of definitions in the Bill. I am not a scientist or a geologist, but I know that, because the Bill is drafted so slackly and imprecisely, all sorts of activities may be carried out. I am assured that we shall vote against the Bill

on Third Reading, but if we are attempting to make the unacceptable remotely acceptable, the amendment must be carried.
Clause 2(2) says that prospecting does not include
drilling to depths exceeding 25 metres or such other depth as the Commission may determine for particular circumstances".
What circumstances are meant? The Bill is imprecise. If somebody said that he wanted to go to a depth lower than 25 m, he would need only to ask the commission and the commission could determine that he could do precisely that.
Clause 2(2) also excludes
dredging or excavation otherwise than for the purpose of obtaining small-scale samples.
An enormous amount of damage can be done to the ecosystem by the use of dredgers to obtain small-scale samples. Clause 2 does not set a limit on the size of dredgers, the scale of dredging or the scale of excavation.
Given what we have said earlier about the Prime Minister and her failure to match her actions to her words—one judges politicians not by what they say, but by what they do—we do not believe that the Prime Minister or the Government are genuine in their concern for the environment. We believe that they are paying lip service to the issue because they realise suddenly that it threatens their electoral position. Nothing concentrates the minds of politicians more that the thought of losing votes. We are not prepared to accept the Bill as it stands. We wish to tighten up the definitions in precisely the way that amendment No. 14 seeks to do.

Mr. Corbyn: Amendment No. 14 and several others go to the heart of the Bill. We are not talking about an end to all scientific exploration in the Antarctic, as the Minister and Conservative Members know. We are talking about an extension of those activities which will become part of prospecting activities and also about the damage to the environment already being done by a lack of control over many of the scientific experiments carried out in the Antarctic.
I have here an excellent report, produced by the Greenpeace Antarctic expedition of 1987–88, on the conditions that it found at each of the bases it visited in the Antarctic. I wish that amendment No. 14 had been in operation some years before, because the damage being caused by irresponsible expeditions, which leave behind fuel drums and rubbish, which incinerate waste instead of taking it home and which are not sufficiently monitored, calls into question the commitment of many of the signatory nations to the treaty to preserving the environment as it is, never mind to averting the dangers that will flow inextricably from allowing any prospecting and thus, at a further stage, exploration for minerals in the Antarctic.

Mr. Tony Banks: I have here an article from The Observer of 9 July which bears the legend:
Rescue or rape for the last wilderness?
It makes the precise point that my hon. Friend is making. It talks about Britain's abandoned base at Port Lockroy which had been broken into and from which coal had been stolen. It turned out that it was gentoo penguins which had stolen anthracite nuts to make their nests. The anthracite nuts did not hurt the gentoo penguins, but they might have taken something else that could have caused enormous damage to the penguin colony.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes an important and valuable point. No nation comes out of the Greenpeace report very well. That report contains examples of dangerous scrap metal, food waste and glass being left behind. On occasions, there has been incineration and if a large amount of plastic is included, dioxins are given off and pollution occurs. There is also at least one example of sewage being pumped raw into the sea from a base. Even when the sewage is chemically treated before being pumped out, the danger to the environment is still serious.
Tragically, we are not dealing with an unpolluted place, but with a place that has already suffered some pollution and exploitation. We should cast our minds back into the history of European habitation of the Antarctic. In 1775, Captain Cook returned, having announced his discovery of the land mass of the Antarctic, as far as it was known then. By 1800—only 25 years later—17 ships were killing whales and seals in the Antarctic and had killed 122,000 seals. Only 22 years later, during the Weddell expedition to the Antarctic, 1·2 million seals had been killed, the fur seal population had become almost extinct, and the elephant seal population was damaged. The whaling industry then went in and carried out its carnage. The Antarctic has already suffered the most appalling carnage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) mentioned penguins. He was perfectly right to do so because the sealing companies that went to the Antarctic to exploit the fur seal and the elephant seal used to boil penguins alive because they found them combustible. They destroyed those animals to provide themselves with oil. The carnage of wildlife in that period was appalling, and the carnage would continue today if the wildlife was still there to be exploited in such large numbers and if such activities were not controlled.

Mr. Banks: I have just remembered a pathetic scene that I saw on television. Penguins were herded up a ramp and had to jump into a vat where they were being rendered down for oil. It was absolutely disgusting. The people who did that were the forerunner of the companies that the Bill would allow to run riot in the Antarctic. Having seen what was done in the past, and knowing what is done now, I am not prepared to let such companies into the Antarctic in the future.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. Considerable damage was done to the environment in that period. When the whaling industry did its damage to the environment, it was only international pressure—not Government action—and pressure from ordinary people, like the many hon. Members who are concerned about such matters, that in the end forced the International Whaling Commission to put a ban on whaling. My hon. Friends have already pointed out the corruption of that system by so-called "scientific whaling", which even today threatens certain species of whale.
I wish that the House were being televised now. Many people outside the House would be horrified that the House was about to agree a badly drafted Bill which will allow not only further exploration but prospecting for minerals in the Antarctic. I firmly believe that there can be only one reason for looking for various minerals and hydrocarbons in the Antarctic, and that is to exploit them at a later date for commercial purposes. We shall be saying that in one area of the world, which we know has a fragile ecosystem and an environment fraught with danger,

because we allow the exploitation of minerals, we are prepared to allow prospecting, with all its implicit dangers, to go ahead, too.
I hope that the Government will at least give us credit for tabling amendments seeking a proper environmental investigation before any further "scientific" explorations for minerals take place because I believe that the damage from such explorations will be enormous.
We are dealing with a dry continent and with a fragile place that has no human habitation on most of its land mass. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said that ice remains there many thousands of years. A proper examination of that ice would allow us all to learn something about the history of this planet and from that, we could begin to look at some of the horrors of what we are doing to the planet. It is not a question of regarding every place on the planet as a potential place where the free market can let rip. We should look at the planet with a view to protecting it, because in so doing we are protecting our own lives and those of everybody and everything else.
The Bill is fundamentally and badly flawed. Although the Government say that they are concerned about protecting the environment, they are simply opening the way for its commercial exploitation. The Government continue to say that it is reasonable to allow people to look for minerals. In debates on later amendments and on Third Reading, we shall point out the fundamental change that the Bill would bring about.
The Antarctic treaty, which was willingly signed by a number of nations, went an awfully long way towards protecting the Antarctic. It made it a zone of peace. It stopped military overflying and the potential for nuclear testing. It stopped the area being used as a military base and allowed scientific exploration if the published results were circulated among all the signatory nations. That was an enormous step forward. However, I doubt whether all the information has been made available to all the signatory nations. Much of the scientific exploration there could rapidly become commercial exploration for minerals.
I am looking for an Antarctic protection Bill from the Government which would limit and control any signs of exploration, which would ensure that all the results were published and that the exploration did not relate merely to commercial purposes.
The crucial point of the amendment is that such information is supposed to be of a scientific nature. It is supposed to be published and circulated. There is supposed to be close co-operation between all the signatory nations. However, the Greenpeace survey of the Antarctic has suggested that that co-operation is not as close as it might be. The Bill simply allows those who have been granted a licence—from earlier debates, we know that they could be multinational companies or anybody—to maintain commercial secrecy about what they have discovered. Instead of the principle that the Antarctic should be a place of common heritage and common knowledge, it will become a place of commercial venture and commercial knowledge. Nobody can tell me that any oil company, mining company or anybody else will put in the money that is required for exploring the Antarctic for gold, coal, manganese or hydrocarbons, if they do not believe that they will ultimately be granted an exploration licence for the Antarctic.
I realise that some of my amendments have not been selected and therefore cannot be debated directly, but I hope that we can have a strict licensing regime with the genuine circulation and publication of all scientific and other information relating to the Antarctic. Above all, I should like a declaration such as the Australians have made, that we consider the Antarctic to be the common heritage of the whole world, not just a few nations or companies, and that it will be protected for ever.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth referred to what Sir Peter Scott said about these matters. He said that we should leave well alone and he is right. Any exploration in Antarctica will cause damage. Recently a ship carrying diesel fuel to a base in the Antarctic suffered a spillage. It was very difficult to find out what had happened. What would happen if there was a major accident involving an explosion, or spillage of chemicals—they are required in exploration work—or a seismic test explosion went wrong in a volcanic area? No one knows what would happen. Supplies could not be rushed in to deal with what might be an appalling catastrophe. Such an accident might be caused by the ignorance of Members of Parliament here, thousands of miles from Antarctica. It might be a result of our blind stupidity in allowing exploration to go ahead in the full knowledge of the great danger that that might pose to the continent.
I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept the amendment as part of an environmental protection regime for the Antarctic and as part of the turning point in our attitudes towards all wildernesses. We should learn what we can from Antarctica and see it for what it is. Similarly, we should learn what we can from the rain forests instead of chopping them down to supply a little hardwood to make garden seats. We should learn from Antarctica, and we might gain more than all the temporary wealth that might arise from exploring for gold, manganese, coal or oil.
This amendment goes to the heart of the Bill and I hope that the House will accept it.

9 pm

Mr. Cryer: I want to refer to amendments Nos. 34 and 36, because the criticisms by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Griffiths) were unfair. The amendment moved by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hardy) seeks to exercise supervision and jurisdiction over the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend demonstrated his great interest and expertise in this subject when he moved the amendment.
The Minister seeks to give the House assurances today, but he may not hold his office much longer because there is about to be a reshuffle and he may be pushed on somewhere else during the kaleidoscope of plotting in which the Prime Minister is currently engaged. She wants to keep herself surrounded by friends and supporters so that she is not stabbed in the back before the next general election and replaced by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine).

Mr. Skinner: That is a diplomatic illness.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) describes that as a diplomatic illness, and it may arise as a result of the machinations in Cabinet. We cannot guarantee that the Under-Secretary of State for

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will still hold his office after the reshuffle, no matter how earnest and honest he considers his entreaties and assurances today.
Amendment No. 34 would add the words:
and especially if there is any risk of environmental damage
to the end of clause 7. That qualifies the directions which the Secretary of State may give to persons or licensees. That qualification is sensible, especially if there is a risk of environmental damage.
No doubt the Minister will cavil and object to some of the comments of Opposition Members to the effect that the Bill gives sufficient leeway for the multinationals to exploit the Antarctic which we want to keep as a wilderness. The Antarctic should be a preservation area so that the damage that has been wreaked by unchecked and uncontrolled multinationals elsewhere on our planet is not repeated in Antarctica.

Mr. Skinner: It should be a multinational-free zone.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is quite right.
Amendment No. 34 adds that qualification and ensures that the Secretary of State has that attitude at the forefront of his mind when giving directions.
We must also consider the powerful multinational companies which have representatives in this place and down the Corridor. I was once a member of a Cabinet sub-committee which dealt with the mining of manganese nodules. There was much concern about obtaining important minerals and there was a north-south dialogue in which the deprived countries claimed that the minerals should be shared more equally among the nations on our planet.

Mr. Skinner: Is this a Cabinet secret?

Mr. Cryer: It may well be.
During our discussions, a Member of the House of Lords who died several years ago said, "I saw Peter in the Corridor and Peter said to me, 'We are anxious about the decision over the mining of manganese nodules because we are uncertain about our investments'." The Peter concerned was Peter Carrington, who was chairman of Rio Tinto-Zinc. There was a direct input into the Cabinet sub-committee, but that was rejected by the other sub-committee members. None the less, there are influences at work in the corridors of power. We want to make sure that the Secretary of State is bound by legislation that he cannot edge round because people are getting hold of his elbow in the corridors of power and saying, "Look here, old boy, what about allowing a bit of excavation and exploration? It will be only preliminary, of course." Those people are ready to seize mineral rights and plunder them for profit, because that is the main motivation of the multinationals.
Clause 8(1) would allow the Secretary of State to
appoint as inspectors to discharge such functions as may be prescribed
people who appear to him to be appropriately qualified for the purpose. Amendment No. 36 says:
'among whom shall be individuals nominated by either or both national or international organisations which have standing in the field of environmental protection.'.
That ensures that the Secretary of State's absolute position under the legislation is qualified. Surely that is not unreasonable. The Minister may say that this is United Kingdom legislation and ask whether it is reasonable for


a Government to be subject to nominations by national or international organisations, but they are already subject to that sort of thing in a variety of ways.
No doubt the Minister is a supporter of the European Economic Community and the Government have to accept nominations from the EEC. They make nominations to the EEC and the present Commissioner, the former Member for Richmond, Yorks, Sir Leon Brittan, was nominated by the Prime Minister as a reward for services rendered. It is not uncommon for nominations to be made by other bodies to this country and by this country to other bodies. There is nothing extraordinary in saying that the Government should have to appoint among the inspectors and advisers people of standing in the world of environmental protection. The Government should not merely accept that—they should welcome it because it will ensure that whatever the view of the Minister, who may well be in favour of the clause—

Mr. Skinner: Here today and gone tomorrow.

Mr. Cryer: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover says, the Minister may be here today and gone tomorrow. The amendment would provide some certainty for the future and would realise the purpose of my hon. Friends by ensuring environmental protection.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend may like to refer to other examples. We are not suggesting that people should come here from abroad, command enormous salaries and immediately become captains of large sections of British industry. The powers to do that exist. The Government appointed an American citizen to head coal and steel and Canadian citizens have been appointed to head other great national industries. By now some of them may be helping to run the National Health Service. We are talking not about that sort of example, but about the precedents have been well established by the present Administration.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is the important qualification that these persons must be nominated by national or international organisations with standing in the world of environmental protection. That will bind the Secretary of State so that he will have to have that sort of nomination in mind and make those appointments. It will ensure that there cannot be any back-door dealing, with the multinationals putting suitable people forward. That is the Government's record. They have been ruthless in appointing placemen and women to virtually every body in the country. They kicked out of the National Health Service people who were of any independent sort of mind and, of course, they booted out immediately anybody with a Labour pedigree and appointed their own hacks.
I have strong suspicions that when the advisory group is appointed it will contain the representatives of capital and the multinationals so that they can edge round the restrictions in the legislation.

Mr. Skinner: The Sultan of Brunei could make nominations.

Mr. Cryer: I am receiving some useful advice from my hon. Friend.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be helpful if we had solo speeches rather than duets.

Mr. Cryer: I am receiving some helpful suggestions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, who will bear with me when I say that the sad record of the Government is of appointing lickspittle sycophants to positions of importance, whereas they should be appointing people of independence. Anyone who shows any independence of mind is kicked out and replaced by some wooden-headed, blank-faced, blank-minded, incompetent sycophant, whose strings can then be pulled. One example is the management of British Rail, who have created the present conflict because of the determination of the Government.

Mr. Tony Banks: The same applies to the Cabinet.

Mr. Cryer: The Cabinet's record of complete subservience to the Prime Minister and its lack of any sign of independent thought makes it even more important that amendment No. 36 should be carried. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who as usual is trying to break the democratic rules of Parliament with continual disgraceful shouts and disdainful sneers from a sedentary position, will reconsider her antagonism and decide to vote for the amendment.
I support all the amendments, but amendments Nos. 34 and 36 suit me especially because they are modest, conformist improvements to the legislation. I suspect that the Minister will be determined to oppose them, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will have at least one token vote on this set of amendments, because they are important. We too often complain about the actions of Ministers, but Ministers are given power by this legislative body. We should qualify and contain that power if we are concerned about this issue.

Mr. Corbyn: I am sure that it was a slip of the tongue by my hon. Friend, but many Opposition Members strongly and seriously oppose what the Bill is doing to a vital area of the world. There will be no token votes—they will be serious votes in favour of a scheme to protect the Antarctic rather than to pave the way for its commercial exploitation.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but he has misunderstood what I said earlier. I was not saying that it was a token vote in the sense of a vote being a token—I meant that we would probably not vote on every amendment. The amendment on which we vote will encapsulate all the amendments, including the ones on which we do not vote. Our vote will represent a token of support for all the amendments, even though we choose to vote only on, for instance, amendment No. 14. If my hon. Friends so desire, I shall be happy to vote on all the amendments. We shall have to see how things work out.
If, however, the Minister is reasonable and he says that he will accept the amendments, obviously a vote will not be necessary. There will not then be any accusations about the Government being an elective dictatorship and bringing in the rather seedy collection of estate agents and merchant bankers who constitute the Conservative majority here today to wend their way through the Lobby and trample on every decent amendment. My guess, however, is that they will do just that. We intend to ensure that all the amendments are treated with the seriousness


they deserve, and we shall attempt to ensure that they qualify and control the Secretary of State's future activities.

Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that amendment No. 14 was a probing one to test the Government's real intention with regard to the Bill. Having listened to the analysis of amendment No. 36 given by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), I could say the same of that amendment.
Amendment No. 36 should commend itself to the Government, although the Opposition parties would prefer no such Bill to be before the House. I cannot see anything wrong with amendment No. 36 as it would ensure that there was some confidence in the inspectors and observers to be appointed. The notes on manpower in the Bill show that the observers and inspectors will not be appointed for some years and are likely to be appointed
on an ad hoc basis
If the Bill reaches the statute book, those inspectors and observers will have an important job to do, and if their work met with international approval, their hands would be greatly strengthened.
9.15 pm
The Government have had a problem trying to sell the Bill because no Opposition Member believes that it will end at prospecting—that is the first step. One does not have boreholes at Sellafield or Dounreay unless, ultimately, one hopes to dispose of nuclear waste in them. Companies will have to invest considerable sums of money if they want to undertake any operation in Antarctica. Do the Government genuinely believe that they will be content to invest all that money purely for the purpose of prospecting? What activities does the Minister expect to be undertaken in Antarctica? Surely he accepts that companies would be unwilling to stop if they found that mineral wealth in the region could be exploited later.
It is easy to say that the Bill is just about prospecting, but prospecting involves considerable engineering work. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has spoken of the report that has already been compiled on existing installations and operations in Antarctica. Those installations do not live up to the highest standards of cleanliness, tidiness and environmental integrity. If we are to embark on further major engineering operations, albeit prospecting operations, that involve fuel and mud it is clear that further damage could be done to the environment.
The Minister should recognise that prospecting itself could lead to environmental harm. For that reason, I believe that amendment No. 14, moved by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), is important, as it restricts such prospecting to "further scientific investigation" coupled with the requirement that it does
not cause damage to the Antarctic environment or dependent or associated ecosystems.
That amendment focuses the concern that has been expressed by many Opposition Members. The Minister must give a convincing reply.
Amendment No. 23 deals with insurance. The loss and damage that should be covered must relate to environmental damage, not to the usual economic loss that is often associated with insurance claims. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to say what the Government have in mind for the conditions to be

attached to licences with respect to insurance. I note that clause 3(5) suggests that any requirement on the licensee will be discretionary. Do the Government intend to have a stipulation on insurance? Under clause 3(5)(b) the licensee must insure himself
to such extent as may be determined … under the licence".
What do the Government have in mind regarding the extent of that insurance? The wording is rather vague. The Bill almost gives the Government a blank cheque to do what they like. It is important to know the Government's intentions.
If we are talking about insurance, we are presupposing the possibility of some damage. For that reason, my party firmly believes that there should be no opportunity for such damage to take place and that is why we reject the drift of the Bill. We should be interested, however, to hear the Minister's detailed response to some of the points that I have made.

Mr. Eggar: We have had a long and interesting discussion on this group of amendments. I shall start by referring back to the purpose of the Bill which, for the first time, regulates prospecting activity by United Kingdom nationals and entities. In addition, for the first time, it excludes exploration and development by such companies. There has been, particularly from hon. Members without the good fortune to have served on the Committee, confusion between prospecting, which the Bill covers" and exploration and development, which it explicitly excludes.
I shall, if it is convenient for the House, go through the various points made by hon. Members. I can tell the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who is not in his place at the moment, that I shall certainly deal with the Government's response to the letters of Sir Peter Scott and Greenpeace. It may be more convenient for the House and more orderly if I do so on the next group of amendments.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the experience in Spitzbergen. It is true that there has been some mining in Spitzbergen for a number of decades. However, it was not prospecting, but development as defined under the terms of the covention. That development work has had some limited environmental impact but certainly has not caused the damage to the ecosystem to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his brief intervention.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) asked a number of detailed questions. I shall try to deal with them now, and if the hon. Gentleman would like further clarification in writing, I shall be happy to give that. He asked about the size of any prospecting team. Size will be a key factor which the Secretary of State will have to take into account when he decides whether to give a licence.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about what he defined as seismic exploration. I am informed that, in practice nowadays, seismic exploration rarely uses explosives. The most frequently used technique is known as an air gun which is, effectively, a sound wave echo analysis. It may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman that explosives have already been used for scientific research under the Antarctic treaty system. I hope that I have been able to set his mind at rest. I assure the hon. Gentleman that no samples will be permitted which would be commercially valuable in themselves, so that method could not be used as a route to development through the back door. The


precise definiton of "small-scale", which was the hon. Gentleman's point, will be decided during the process of issuing a licence.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) raised the problem associated with existing scientific research and the despoliation of the environment which followed from that. He raised the issue of sewage. He should put this in perspective. He should imagine the sewage output of a colony of 100,000 gentoo penguins and compare that with the sewage ouput of, for example, a scientific research station of 10 individuals. He would then see that the two are relative and that a problem associated with sewage from the local inhabitants already exists—if one can describe penguins as inhabitants. It is true that the environmental effect of the issue of nutrients—if we can refer to penguin and human sewage in that way—is exactly the same. That is part of the regenerative cycle in Antarctica.

Mr. Corbyn: It is not a fair analogy to describe what 12 scientists in a cabin might be eating and excreting and to compare it with 100,000 penguins' diet, which consists exclusively of fish. Fish becomes part of a natural cycle, but humans eat a variety of foods. Pollution levels in rivers and seas around this country show that there is a serious problem. Some of that sewage is partly treated; some of it does not degrade or decompose; some of it lies around in still water for a long time.
A small number of humans and all the rubbish that they produce can cause a great deal more damage—[Interruption.] I am not sure whether everyone is listening to this important point. The Minister should address his mind to the problems of large volumes of rubbish and of the incineration of plastics which pollute the air. His point was rather silly.

Mr. Eggar: I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman was so sensitive. I was just trying to put his remarks into context. He made his other points in Committee too, where I took considerable trouble to try to answer them. I assure him that we shall raise a number of them in the October meeting. They are not covered by Bill: they are covered under the terms of the Antarctic treaty.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) discussed the definition of prospecting. That definition comes from article 1, paragraph 8, of the convention. It does not come from United Kingdom legislation. The purpose of the definition of prospecting in the Bill is to ensure that no entity in Antarctica will be able to licence any activity which will have any more effect on the environment than the sort of scientific research that is already going on and is covered by the Antarctic treaty.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred to Opposition amendment No. 14. Perhaps it would help him if I explained why that amendment gives us some difficulty. The definition of prospecting in the Bill already reflects the definition in the convention. Scientific research within the meaning of the Antarctic treaty is expressly excluded by the convention. Defining prospecting activities in terms of scientific investigations, as his amendment does, would be incompatible with the convention and would cause serious confusion between

scientific investigation carried out under the Antarctic treaty and prospecting activity carried out under the convention.
The qualification that the amendment would introduce, relating to damage to the Antarctic environment, is unnecessary. The avoidance of such damage in relation to all Antarctic mineral activity is the purpose of the convention, article 4 of which provides in detail for assessing possible environmental impact. Clause 3(3) requires that the Secretary of State does not issue licences other than in accordance with the international obligations of the United Kingdom.
Similar points may be made about amendment No. 23, although the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) spoke specifically about insurance. It is highly likely that any licensee would insure himself against liability for environmental damage, and it is also likely that any licence would include a condition requiring him to insure. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.
The hon. Member for Wentworth spoke to amendment No. 34. There will be an international obligation on this country under articles 2 and 4 of the convention to avoid the risk of environmental damage in Antarctica. The whole purpose of the Bill is to ratify the convention, so the amendment is not necessary.

Mr. Dalyell: If, for one reason or another, the convention is not ratified, what do the Government estimate will be the ecological damage to Antarctica, given the circumstances that would then prevail?

Mr. Eggar: Potentially, it is extremely serious. At present no prospecting is being carried out because of a voluntary moratorium, pending the timely entry into force of the convention. If it becomes clear that the convention will not come into force, it will be only a matter of time before one country or another agrees to prospecting being carried out in an unregulated way. The consequences for the environment in Antarctica would be extremely serious. That is why the convention is so desirable and why we are moving rapidly to ratify it.

Ms. Primarolo: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: With respect, I am trying to deal with the points that have been made.
The hon. Member for Wentworth asked how the inspectors would be appointed. The Secretary of State and the Government are responsible for the appointment of inspectors. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, we intend to appoint inspectors in an ad hoc way. Clearly, the skills and experience required will vary depending on the type of prospecting activity to be inspected. The Secretary of State will take into account the skills that are necessary. I imagine that the qualifications or experience of environmental protection referred to in the amendment will be called for.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) also expressed some anxiety about that point. If hon. Gentlemen are unhappy about the appointments that may be made by the Secretary of State, I remind them that any other party is entitled to appoint people to inspect prospecting activity that is licensed by the Government. If that does not satisfy them, the Commission that is set up under the convention can also appoint inspectors. There is


a three-tier system of appointment and even with the most vivid imagination no one could believe that all the inspectors would be flawed and would fail to take account of environmental protection.
With those remarks I hope that the hon. Member for Swansea, East will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are considering a group of amendments and I understand that you will call at least the first one for a Division. Will the Division on amendment No. 36 be recorded in Hansard at the end of the debate, which would be convenient, or when it is put to the vote?

Mr. Speaker: If there is a Division it will be taken when the amendment is put to the vote. I have just taken the Chair and I am considering whether that action is appropriate.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a Report stage, not a Committee. The hon. Member can speak only once.

Mr. Corbyn: With the leave of the House—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member does not have the leave of the House.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Corbyn: It is simply this. The Minister did not answer the points put to him reasonably and legitimately, so I sought the leave of the House to find out more from him. The Minister gave way at one point when I asked about inspectors, and I wished to reply to what he said.

Mr. Speaker: If the House does not give the hon. Gentleman leave to speak again, I am afraid that I cannot give it to him.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 73, Noes 194.

Division No. 300]
[9.34 pm


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Haynes, Frank


Beggs, Roy
Heffer, Eric S.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Howells, Geraint


Buckley, George J.
Illsley, Eric


Callaghan, Jim
Janner, Greville


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Kennedy, Charles


Clelland, David
Livingstone, Ken


Cohen, Harry
Livsey, Richard


Cryer, Bob
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Loyden, Eddie


Dewar, Donald
McFall, John


Dixon, Don
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maclennan, Robert


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McWilliam, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Madden, Max


Eadie, Alexander
Mallon, Seamus


Fisher, Mark
Maxton, John


Flynn, Paul
Meale, Alan


Fyfe, Maria
Michael, Alun


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gordon, Mildred
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Graham, Thomas
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hardy, Peter
Morley, Elliott





Mowlam, Marjorie
Spearing, Nigel


Mullin, Chris
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Nellist, Dave
Vaz, Keith


Parry, Robert
Wallace, James


Pike, Peter L.
Walley, Joan


Prescott, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Primarolo, Dawn
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Redmond, Martin



Richardson, Jo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Tony Banks and


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gow, Ian


Allason, Rupert
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Amess, David
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Amos, Alan
Gregory, Conal


Arbuthnot, James
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Hague, William


Ashby, David
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Batiste, Spencer
Harris, David


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hawkins, Christopher


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hayes, Jerry


Benyon, W.
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Irvine, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Irving, Charles


Bottomley, Peter
Jackson, Robert


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Jessel, Toby


Bowis, John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Key, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Kilfedder, James


Brazier, Julian
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bright, Graham
Knapman, Roger


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Budgen, Nicholas
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Burns, Simon
Knowles, Michael


Butcher, John
Latham, Michael


Butterfill, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Carrington, Matthew
Lee, John (Pendle)


Carttiss, Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Cash, William
Lightbown, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Chapman, Sydney
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Chope, Christopher
Lord, Michael


Churchill, Mr
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Maclean, David


Cope, Rt Hon John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Couchman, James
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Cran, James
Malins, Humfrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mans, Keith


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Maples, John


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Day, Stephen
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Devlin, Tim
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dover, Den
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Durant, Tony
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Eggar, Tim
Miller, Sir Hal


Evennett, David
Mills, Iain


Fallon, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Favell, Tony
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mitchell, Sir David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Monro, Sir Hector


Fookes, Dame Janet
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Morrison, Sir Charles


Fox, Sir Marcus
Moss, Malcolm


Franks, Cecil
Nelson, Anthony


Freeman, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


French, Douglas
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gale, Roger
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gill, Christopher
Oppenheim, Phillip


Glyn, Dr Alan
Page, Richard


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Paice, James


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Porter, David (Waveney)






Portillo, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Price, Sir David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Raffan, Keith
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Redwood, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Rhodes James, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Trotter, Neville


Rost, Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Sackville, Hon Tom
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walters, Sir Dennis


Shelton, Sir William
Ward, John


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Warren, Kenneth


Shersby, Michael
Watts, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wheeler, John


Speed, Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilshire, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Stevens, Lewis
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Yeo, Tim


Stokes, Sir John



Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. Alan Howarth and


Summerson, Hugo
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

GRANT OF LICENCES

Mr. Anderson: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 45, leave out
'may, if he thinks fit',
and insert
'shall establish a British Antarctic Licensing Commission whose purpose shall be, in appropriate circumstances and subject to the provisions of this section, to'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we shall discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in page 3, line 1, leave out subsections (2), (3) and (4) and insert—

'(2A) The British Antarctic Licensing Commission shall be appointed by the Secretary of State and shall comprise five members, including at least one representative from each of International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, International Whaling Commission, and the Commission for the European Communities.

(3A) The Chairperson and two other members of the Commission shall be persons appearing to the Minister to have no financial or commercial interests as are likely to affect them as members independent of the mining industry.

(4A) An application for a license shall be accompanied by such fee (if any) as may be prescribed and an environmental impact statement.

(5A) An environmental impact statement comprises a document or series of documents providing for the purpose of assessing the likely impact upon the environment of the activity proposed to be carried out the information specified in (6A) below.

(6A) The specified information is—

(a) a description of the activities proposed, comprising information about the site and design and size or scale of the activity;
(b) the data necessary to identify and assess the main effects which that activity is likely to have on the environment;
(c) a description of the likely significant effects, direct and indirect, on the environment of the activity, explained by reference to its possible impact on—


human beings;
flora;
fauna;
soil;
water;
air;
climate;
the landscape;
the inter-action between any of the foregoing;
material assets;
the cultural heritage;

(d) where significant adverse effects are identified with respect to any of the foregoing, a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce or remedy those effects; and
(e) a summary in non-technical language of the information specified above.

(7A) An environmental impact assessment may include, by way of explanation or amplification of any of the specified information, further information on any of the following matters—

(a) the physical characteristics of the proposed activity, and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases;
(b) the main characteristics of the prospecting activities proposed, including the nature and quality of the materials to be used;
(c) the estimated type and quantity of expected residues and emissions (including pollutants of water, air, or soil, noise, vibration, light, heat and radiation) resulting from the proposed activity when in operation;
(d) (in outline) the main alternatives (if any) studied by the applicant, appellant or authority and an indication of the main reasons for choosing the activity proposed;
(e) the likely significant direct and indirect effects on the environment of the activity proposed which may result from—

(i) the use of natural resources;
(ii) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances, and the elimination of waste;
(iii) the forecasting methods to assess any effects on the environment about which information is given under the subparagraph (e); and
(iv)any difficulties, such as technical deficiencies or lack or know-how, encountered in compiling any specified information.

In paragraph (e), "effects" includes secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long term, permanent, temporary and negative effects.

(8A) Where further information is included in an environmental statement pursuant to (7) above, a non-technical summary of that information shall also be provided.

(9A) The British Antarctic Licensing Commission shall not grant a licence to any person unless it is satisfied

(i) that the person is suitably qualified to hold a licence; and
(ii) that the carrying on by that person of the authorised activities will be consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom.

(10) A licence shall be granted for a maximum period of two years and subject to such conditions as the British Antarctic Licensing Commission thinks fit.".'

No. 20, in page 3, line 5, after 'with', insert 'all'.

No. 27, in page 3, line 6, at end add
`and that such a licence shall not be granted unless the Secretary of State is completely satisfied that no pollution will result from its implementation'.

No. 22, in page 3, line 16, leave out 'such loss or', and insert 'any'.

No. 24, in page 3, line 17, after 'activities', insert
`such loss or other damage'.

No. 25, in page 3, line 17, leave out 'and'.

No. 29, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'providing for' and insert 'requiring'.

No. 26. in page 3, line, 19, at end insert


'and

(d) requiring the licensee, within twelve months from the grant of his license and prior to commencing any prospecting activities, to prepare, and from time to time modify, a statement setting out the manner in which he proposes to prevent damage to the environment or ecosystem of Antarctica arising out of the tarring on by him of authorised activities; and
(e) requiring the licensee, before preparing or modifying a statement, to consult with the Commission and with the Nature Conservancy Council or such other body as the British Antarctic Licensing Commission shall consider appropriate.'.

No. 28, in page 3, line 19, at end add
'and
(d) and that a bond equal to twice the sum required for insurance purposes shall be deposited before a licence is granted and which shall be forfeited if there is any oil spillage or other significant pollution as a result of or during the exercise of that licence'.

No. 46, in page 3, line, 19, at end add—
'(d) any licensee must give a report each six months to the Inspectorate and the Environmental Protection Agency on the effects of the exploration and its environmental impact.'.

No. 47, in page 3, line 19, at end add—
'(e) the numbers of persons involved in the exploration shall be agreed with the Secretary of State and names involved submitted and agreed by him.'.

No. 48, in page 3, line 19, at end add—
'(f) all license applications must be reported to Parliament by the Secretary of State and his subsequent decisions.'.

No. 49, in page 3, line, 19, at end add—
'(g) the license shall specify the exact quantities of minerals that may be extracted for samples; all extracted minerals remain the property of a license commission appointed by the Secretary of State to oversee all licensees.'.

No. 50, in page 3, line 24, at end add—
'(7) No person found guilty of an offence under section 10 below shall be permitted to apply for a licence.'.

No. 30, in clause 4, page 3, line 30, after 'complied with' insert
'or is likely not to be complied with'.

No. 31, in clause 4, page 3, line 33, at end add '
and
(c) that evidence provided by individuals or organisations maintaining interest in these matters is such as to suggest that the exercise of the licence may or will have disadvantageous effect upon the environment.'

No. 45, in clause 4, page 3, line 36, at end add—
'(4) Before any licence is operated there shall be an opportunity for environmental protection groups to visit the site(s) and at any other time during the life of the licence.'.

No. 51, in clause 8, page 4, line 36, at end add—
`There shall be sufficient inspectors to ensure that each licence has a detailed inspection of its activities every six months in whatever part of the Antarctic it is sited.'.

Mr. Anderson: This is a crucial series of amendments. They are the key to providing safeguards in the Bill and a test of the Government's environmental intentions through the Bill and the convention.
We oppose the Bill in principle because circumstances have changed, but the Government have been inflexible and not prepared to move in tune with those changed circumstances. Although we voted in favour of the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, our prime motives since then have been to "green" the Bill, to put each clause through an environmental sieve and to provide as many environmental safeguards as possible. We also want, as far as possible, to remove the discretions available to the Minister.
The amendments relate to the licensing provisions. They are essential because, as the Minister confirmed in Committee, Britain is further down the legislative road towards implementing the convention than the other countries which intended to ratify it. The safeguards that we build into the Bill will therefore set a precedent for other countries to follow.
When the Minister winds up, perhaps he will confirm that that is so. As we are leading the field, it is all the more important that we get the Bill right, build in safeguards and not allow loopholes to remain which are ripe for exploitation by people with no concern for the Antarctic's unique ecosystem.
The purpose of the amendments is to establish the British Antarctic Licensing Commission and set out its terms of reference, which include an obligation on companies seeking licences to provide an environmental impact statement of their intentions before their licences can be considered. The concept of a licensing commission is not new, in either international or domestic law. The convention itself proposes a commission to regulate the exploration and exploitation of Antarctica. Under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, for example, the Cable Authority is charged with allocating franchises on criteria which include standards of decency and impartiality. The British Antarctic Licensing Commission, or BALC, will be accountable to the Secretary of State, though its decisions are more likely to come under judicial scrutiny. Clearly it would be more practicable for the commission's decisions to be taken by way of judicial review than by the Secretary of State. We envisage the accumulation by case law of much more stringent environmental safeguards.
Other amendments relate to the commission's terms of reference. They are set out in extenso in amendment No. 19, but it is not my intention to describe them in detail. Suffice it to say that the amendment begins by setting out the commission's proposed membership. It stresses
The Chairperson and two other members of the Commission shall be persons appearing … to have no financial or commercial interests …
Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have stressed the extent to which people with commercial interests could easily intrude, particularly in respect of licence applications.
Amendment No. 19 goes on to stipulate:
An environmental impact statement comprises a document or series of documents providing for the purpose of assessing the likely impact upon the environment of the activity proposed to be carried out".
The information required for the environmental impact statement is also detailed, and the amendment describes certain discretionary activities.
Finally, amendment No. 19 states:
A licence shall be granted for a maximum period of two years and subject to such conditions as the British Antarctic Commission thinks fit.
It is important that the licence should not be held indefinitely. The suggested maximum of two years will concentrate the licensee's mind, and provide a requirement additional to that in clause 4, which empowers the Secretary of State to revoke or suspend a licence if he is not satisfied with the activities of the licensee.
Amendment No. 19 also sets out organisations which could suitably be represented on the licensing commission. They might include the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, the International Whaling Commission, the Nature 


Conservancy Council, the Natural Environment Research Council, the Commission for the European Communities and the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research.
We believe that the requirements set out in the amendment, although lengthy, are very reasonable and are standard environmental impact assessment criteria. The format has not been snatched from the air or devised by people whom Conservative Members might label eco-freaks. It has been drawn from the Government's own precedent—the statutory instrument, Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988. Those considerations for environmental impact assessments on new developments in the United Kingdom are a legal requirement.
We feel that the criteria developed in Britain are equally relevant internationally. Although the Government may be tardy in translating such criteria from the domestic to the international stage, we believe that that translation must inevitably come. In any case, the convention requires contracting states sponsoring prospectors to submit advance notification of prospecting, along with an environmental impact assessment, which must be circulated to all contracting parties.
In our judgment, this is not an onerous requirement, but rather a litmus test of the Government's commitment—so much trumpeted of late—to the environment. As I said earlier, our Government have taken the lead in terms of implementing the convention domestically. They now have the opportunity to set a worthy precedent for other Governments to follow.

Mr. Hardy: I shall try to make a shorter speech than I made on the previous set of amendments, but I think that it would be appropriate for me to make some comments, as amendments Nos. 27 to 31 are in my name.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that these were the most crucial amendments before the House, as they—quite properly—sought improved safeguards for the Bill. I remind the House that, in the short time that has elapsed since the debate started a little after 7 pm, at least a dozen species on the planet have become extinct—species that may have lived on earth for a thousand years, or perhaps for as long as the ice has existed in Antarctica. That pace of extinction is normal on our planet.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is a pity that the process is not catching on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Hardy: I am a little kinder than my hon. Friend; when the Conservatives are reduced to one Member, I should like him to be preserved as an endangered species.

Mr. John Home Robertson: We could keep him in a zoo.

Mr. Hardy: I have certain reservations about zoological gardens.
Britain has a reputation as the country where conservation was born. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East has reminded us, we are the lead Government in that regard. Surely it is reasonable to suggest that we give a new lead in seeking to retain the position that we once enjoyed.
We have been pretty cavalier with the environment in many parts of the world. I have referred to the tropical rain

forests and the encroaching desert. I have only to look at parts of my own constituency to see what untrammelled commercialism can do, as 1,000 acres of land have become derelict and very little is being done.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Antarctic Minerals Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Hardy: We have enough evidence in these islands of what can happen if greed is untrammelled, legislation is unsatisfactory and Government priorities are inadequate. We are fearful of what may happen in Antarctica. When he replied to the debate on the previous set of amendments, the Minister expressed some anxiety about what might happen if there were inadequate controls.
To ensure that we set an example as the lead Government, we have tabled amendments which would toughen environmental protection within the Bill. The five amendments in my name would require the Secretary of State to be completely satisfied that no environmental damage would follow the issue of a licence. My amendment seeks to remove the word "providing" and replace it with the word "requiring", which makes the restriction a little tighter. In my view, a bond is required to ensure that there will be sufficient resources to make good what damage is done and at the same time to build another hurdle against the force of greed.
Antarctica should remain an international reserve or wilderness area as we do not have enough of those. I have never visited Antarctica, but I once had the magnificent opportunity to fly over the North pole on an extremely clear and cloudless day. That gave me ample ground to intervene in the debate to say that, when we consider the environment of Antarctica, we should consider the topography and the landscape, which should not be cluttered with all the rubbish that may be produced even by scientific research which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, is inadequately controlled.
I am also concerned about the retention of species. Most people are aware that there are penguins in Antarctica; the Minister will know that there are seven species of penguins there. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West has already referred to the gentoo penguin raiding the cold store of a vanished scientific station.
Altogether, 43 species of birds are seen regularly in Antarctica. Some of those birds range far more widely than the Southern ocean. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe is not in his place, because he is a highly skilled ornithologist. Earlier today I asked him whether he had ever seen the wandering albatross, which is a bird of the Southern ocean, and he was fortunate enough to have seen one. It is a very large bird with a 11 ft wingspan. Even birds with 6 or 7 ft wingspans, such as the other members of the albatross family which are large and formidable creatures, are extremely vulnerable to loss of food reserves or the despoliation or poisoning of habitat.

Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a belief that "The Ancient Mariner", written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, was inspired by Cook's voyage to the Antarctic and that one interpretation of the voyage of the


ancient mariner is that we should protect the natural environment and not destroy what we do not know or understand?

Mr. Hardy: There is a line in that fine work of literature which says:
Water, water, every where … nor any drop to drink.
We are not suggesting that water will disappear, even if it is privatised, but it may be unfit to drink. DDT and other pesticides are already found in Antarctic waters.
The degree of commercial exploitation on which some seem eager to embark could lead to the destruction of krill, which is the basic food supply of many of the species that inhabit Antarctica. The development of commercial exploitation in Antarctica will not merely disfigure the environment and make an area that should remain an outstanding international wilderness ugly and unpleasant, but that it will eventually destroy the food supplies and poison the environment of the four types of seal to be found there and the 43 species of birds based there, although they sometimes visit European areas.
The cape pigeon is one such bird. It was seen in the Netherlands not long ago. I am sure that it is a true pigeon, but my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe could comment on that. It is an interesting species. If it sees itself under threat or likely to be treated badly, it spits at those who present the threat. I wish that we had some cape pigeons in the House this evening.

Mr. Tony Banks: It sounds like the Prime Minister.

Mr. Hardy: If we had cape pigeons here, I would wish that the Prime Minister was here as well.

Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems of wildlife in the Antarctic when the first human beings arrived was that they had no fear of them? The penguins stood still while sailors walked up, one after another, and clubbed them to death in their thousands. The seals were treated in the same way, because they came across an enemy about which they had no notion.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Many penguins today are not very suspicious, although, as he has explained, they have great cause to be. I remember taking some children to a zoological garden. It was many years ago, because I have been in the House for a long time. One boy asked me, "Sir, are penguins dangerous?" I said that they were not. I picked one up and the children handled it. They expected it to be oily and unpleasant, but it was quite attractive. That penguin should not have allowed any human to pick it up because we have treated that species barbarously. We have treated all the wildlife of our planet barbarously until relatively recently. The green movement that we have discerned in Britain relatively recently suggests that an increasing proportion of the population requires the higher standards that I hope are embodied in our amendment.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend was referring to penguins in the Antarctic. I have an extract from Time magazine of 23 January which talks about the destruction of 1,000 Adele penguins through the construction of the French research base at Dumont-D'Urville. An airstrip is being built at Pointe Geologie. There is a picture of the earth movers and the penguins are standing there being destroyed. They obviously do not know what is confronting them. I wrote to the Minister with a number

of questions about the destruction of the penguins at Pointe Geologie. I know that it is the responsibility not of the British Government, but of the French Government. However, it emphasises what my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth is saying.

Mr. Hardy: As my hon. Friend will be aware, from time to time we disagree with some of our French colleagues in the parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I can think of a good reason, as can my hon. Friend, to pursue that aspect of French Antarctic policy at a relatively early stage, perhaps when we meet next in September. We could draw this matter to the attention of the French Government, especially since Mr. Mitterrand—rightly in this connection—holds up France as a model. Despite what my hon. Friend has said, I am sorry to say that the position of the French Government is a great: deal more attractive and honourable than our own. Therefore, we should suggest to our French colleagues that their position would be improved by stopping the destruction of the Adele penguin.
I am worried about the seals. Although I said that there were four types of seal, the elephant seal is not strictly an Antarctic creature. The seals are vulnerable. Although their numbers may not have been reduced on the scale of the seals in the Mediterranean, where the numbers deteriorated fairly rapidly not many years ago and are now a matter of serious concern for European conservationists, a threat does exist, not merely because of disturbances to the environment, but because of the other problem in the Antarctic, which is the proper control of the resources of the marine heritage—the krill and the fish. If there is overfishing greedy eyes are certainly fixed on that marine resource—[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members disputing that, because only a few years ago some experts demanded the annual harvest of thousands of tonnes of krill, which could not have been supported for more than a short period.
We are entitled to expect the Government to recognise that, as my hon. Friends have said, they are in a lead position in relation to the environment. We should not surrender that lead and watch Australia and France adopt entirely commendable positions while laying ourselves open to serious criticisms as a nation.
The amendments do not go anywhere near as far as some people might like. However, as was the case with the previous batch of amendments, I believe that they have merit and should command attention from this Administration, together with the acceptance that we must demonstrate that Britain will retain high standards, that we fully recognise the environmental inheritance that the Antarctic offers and that we will not, through inadequacies in our own legislation, provide a threat which future generations—and perhaps, in time, our own—will find grievously unacceptable and utterly inadequate.

Mr. Julian Amery: I apologise for not having participated in much of the debate. I feel a good deal of sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and with the natural desire to keep the Antarctic in its virgin state for longer. I see that point. However, there are vast resources there that cannot easily be extracted. They are under the ice cap, but they could help millions of people, such as the millions of


people in Africa and elsewhere, who are suffering from drought or hunger or war. We must strike a balance in this matter.
The whole object of the treaty is to make it possible to exploit the wealth that is in the Antarctic, although that it is difficult to do. My noble Friend Lord Shackleton—perhaps I should not call him my "Friend" because he is a Labour Peer, but I have worked with him for many years—Lord Buxton and others have left me in no doubt that extracting the wealth is an extremely difficult operation.
That wealth exists and we should not make it impossible to develop the resources of Antarctica in the interests of mankind as a whole, particularly when we consider what has happened in Ethiopia, Somalia or the Sudan. I intervene in this debate partly from filial piety. My father annexed great chunks of the Antarctic to the British empire. He did that because he thought that nothing could be done with it in those days, but he wanted to stake a claim in case an opportunity arose in time to develop the wealth in that part of the world.
10.15 pm
Less than 10 years ago, we had a conflict with Argentina over the Falklands. The Falklands are the nearest that I have ever been to the Antarctic. The Argentines and the Chileans also have claims on Antarctica, some of which overlap with ours. I have sometimes wondered, in the interests of Anglo-Latin American friendship in the south Atlantic, whether we might enlist the co-operation of Argentina, Chile and other countries in the gradual development of Antarctica and its resources as laid down in the treaty. The Falklands under British sovereignty could provide a base for doing just that, with their airfield and improved naval facilities. The Falklands are perhaps the nearest modern developed location to the Antarctic continent.
We should not forswear the possibility of co-operation with Latin American countries and others which have interests in the ultimate development of Antarctica, so long as that is well policed and organised under the Antarctic treaty. The resources of the Antarctic might be made available for the benefit of all mankind and perhaps specifically benefit this country and our citizens who participated in its development.

Mr. Hardy: If the right hon. Gentleman is taking the long view and saying that, in X number of centuries, we might need the reserves in Antarctica, perhaps I could agree in large measure with what he has said. However, our anxiety is that man's greed outstrips his common sense at the moment. Although the Exxon oil disaster off the Alaskan coast was some distance from civilisation, it was a great deal nearer the technical and physical resources necessary to contain the spillage. Even so, it had a dramatic impact on that part of our planet. If such an experience was repeated in the present state of man's capacity and knowledge in the Antarctic peninsula or in the Bellingshausen or Weddell seas, the damage might be colossal and we would not have sufficient resources close enough to such a disaster to respond to what would be a tragedy.

Mr. Amery: I do not suggest that we should wait centuries. It may be wise and possible to tackle the problem sooner. However, if we followed the hon.

Gentleman's recipe, we would not exploit anything. The Californian, Latin American and South African goldfields would not have brought wealth to the local populations or to the world as a whole. We cannot ignore the need of people who are dying today in central Africa and sub-Saharan Africa simply to preserve a national or universal park for ever. As I understand it, the Antarctic treaty offers all the safeguards that are required for a reasonable and logical approach to the problem.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I abstained in the Division on the last amendment. I find myself somewhat out of tune with hon. Friends whose causes I normally support. I should like to explain to them and to the House why that is so. The convention is the best that we are likely to get—and heaven help us if we do not get it, because people could run amok.
I am greatly influenced by the good fortune of having been able to attend a conference on the Antarctic at Ditchley about a year ago. At that conference I listened not only to the Americans arguing strongly and with considerable information the case for such a convention, but also to the best of my recollection to the representations of the Germans and certainly—without doubt, because I checked my notes—to the representations of the Australians. It is a bit rich for Australian politicians now to say that they want to keep the Antarctic in pristine condition when we all know very well that the real influence was the victory in Tasmania of five Greens in a local election. That does not reflect great credit on Australian politics or on the Australian politicians of all hues who tried to appear as knights in shining armour.
I am concerned about certain problems. I have a strong recollection of the powerful argument advanced at Ditchley and Edinburgh by Dr. Steele, the distinguished Scottish-American director of the Woods Hole laboratory. He said that the problem of waste is very real. I agree with my hon. Friends that the shit of Gentos penguins is not so bad as human excrement or many of the things that will remain for years.
First, what will be done about waste? Secondly, I am somewhat put out—I put it no higher—to see my hon. Friends producing the Scott letter. I agree with them that there must be some answer, and when Sir Peter Scott writes such a letter there must be a fairly full reply. Equally, powerful colleagues of ours, of whom Eddie Shackleton is one, take the view that I and others put forward—and not, in many respects, the view of my hon. Friends. However, there are distinguished experts on both sides. I should like an answer to those questions.

Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for setting out his views. I have an enormous respect for his work in exposing the Government's deviousness over the Falklands and on many other issues. I am sorry to say that I do not agree with him on this issue, but I have great regard for what he says. Essentially, his argument boils down to the fact that he and I agree on the need to preserve in its entirety the environment of the Antarctic. He believes that the convention which is on offer is the best way to protect that environment, because he thinks that it is achievable and can be done now. A few years ago, many of us might have agreed with that view, but things have moved on. We have


seen the change of view by the Australian Government, who say that they now support the wilderness park idea that New Zealand promoted some time earlier.
The amendment proposes a licensing authority, which would be free from the commercial pressures, as far as that is possible, that we think are implicit in everything that the Government have so far put forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that amendments Nos. 17 and 19 were the important ones in the group—which they are. Amendment No. 17 provides for the setting up of a British Antarctic licensing commission. Amendment No. 19 goes through the details of that commission and the environmental impact surveys that it will he expected to undertake. As my hon. Friend pointed out, everything said on environmental impact surveys in the two pages of the amendment—it is one of the longest that I have seen—is taken from existing British Government legislation—the regulations contained in the Town and Country Planning Acts. Therefore, it is all eminently sensible and achievable.
We are saying that, before any exploitation, be it prospecting or what we believe will lead on to the exploitation of minerals in the Antarctic, an environmental impact assessment must be made. It must go into all the aspects involved, such as the type of activities proposed, information on the site, the size and scale of that activity and the data that will be necessary to identify the main effects, and then it must consider the possible effects of all the matters mentioned.
It is easy to say that what we are talking about is the search for minerals, but clearly many other matters arise from that. If there is mineral exploration in a particular ice-free or partially ice-free area of the Antarctic, inevitably that will also be the wintering ground for many birds and other wildlife. If there is any human habitation, that could drive the wildlife away—which, of itself, may upset the ecosystem.
For example, if shoals of fish are driven away, penguins may leave too, because there will be insufficient fish for them to eat. They may go somewhere else where there is insufficient food, so they, too, may start to decrease in numbers. That phenomenon is recognised in many other places.
There must be a serious examination of all the effects. We must not just examine the possibility of oil spillage from a ship going to the site, serious as that would be, but we must examine all the knock-on effects on the wildlife. It is for those reasons that we have put forward a detailed series of proposals. I would be disappointed if they were not accepted by the Government as a reasonable basis for the survey.
Equally important, we say that the members of the proposed licensing commission shall be people who do not have a commercial interest in what is going on in the Antarctic. We do not deny, and we never have, that we are prepared to support and recognise the use of the Antarctic as the basis for scientific research. Indeed, if it had not been used for such research, we would not know of the damage that we are already doing to the environment through the destruction of the ozone layer. We would not know much about the increase in carbon dioxide within the atmosphere, because we would not be able to take accurate samples of air that has been untouched for possibly 100,000 years. It is essential that it be pure research and that the information gained should be publicly and freely available.
As I said before, I am concerned about the fact that the Greenpeace survey of scientific sites in the Antarctic showed that considerable damage has already been done to the environment immediately around them, and that requires rectification. The Minister in Committee and again on the Floor of the House has promised to take up our concerns at the October meeting.
Another worry is what will be the cut-off point between scientific research, which will provide information which is freely available in the public domain, and mineral exploration which becomes a commercial benefit. I believe that the Bill crosses that Rubicon, which is why I and many others are so worried about it. The Bill paves the way for commercial exploration, the results of which would not be in the public domain but would be commercial secrets available to only those companies which had invested considerable sums of money in the search for that crucial information.
One cannot imagine that a company the size of Exxon, BP, Consolidated Gold Fields, Rio Tinto-Zinc or Lonrho—or any large mining exploration companies—would be prepared to invest the millions necessary to undertake the research in the Antarctic if they did not feel at the end of the day that they would get something out of it. That would be the purpose of going there. It might be a bit of a shock to Conservative Members, but none of the companies I have mentioned are charities. They are dedicated to making large sums of money out of the mining industry. They have no charitable intent. That is why the difference between publicly funded scientific research and privately financed exploration is so crucial. In that regard, the Bill is seriously defective.
10.30 pm
Together with amendments Nos. 17 and 19, I tabled other amendments, designed to strengthen the environmental protection agency that I envisage or the licensing commission that is envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East. It is important that a number of criteria are laid down. It is important that such an organisation should report regularly on the effects of exploration an its environmental impact. That does not mean that those reports would be made at the end of the period of a licence—such a licence could run for several years—rather, that the effects of any exploration should be investigated and reported upon as it goes along.
We should be clear about who is in the Antarctic and what they are doing there. It is all very well for the Minister or for the Secretary of State to grant a licence to any one company to undertake exploration in the Antarctic. The company may or may not be reputable, but that remains to be seen. The company, however, may be the subject of a takeover and in the subsequent takeover battle the value of its prospecting licence could be brought to bear. The nature of the exploration could then change significantly, as could the character of the personnel. Amendment No. 47 asks that the numbers of personnel and their names be agreed with the Secretary of State.
Clause 10 deals with the penalties for people who infringe the conditions of the licence or damage the environment. If such damage is to be avoided and such persons are to be prevented from taking part in another exploration at a later date, there must be a register of those who initially go to the Antarctic. That is why amendment No. 47 asks that the Secretary agrees all the names of those who go to that region and that a register of them be kept.


If any of those people are found guilty of infringing the terms of the licence or of wilfully damaging the wildlife, flora or fauna, they could be prevented from going to the region again under another licence. That is an important consideration.
We also believe that the Secretary of State should report to the House all the licence applications that he has received and his decision on them. In that way those applications and the subsequent decisions would be in the public domain.
It is also important to specify the volume of minerals allowed to be extracted for sample purposes. As my hon. Friends have already said, scientific whaling is the grossest abuse of science. That whaling is commercial; it is a deliberate attempt to thwart the intentions of the International Whaling Commission that has finally banned such whaling. Whaling is continuing under the guise of science, and it is a cruel deception. I do not want to see something similar happen in the Antarctic.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is worth placing on record the efforts that have been made in this regard by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as it shows that our attitude to the Bill and, in this respect, to the Government, is constructive. The Parliamentary Secretary has stood up to defend the interests of the world's whale population against the approach adopted by the Norwegians, the Icelanders and, in particular, the Japanese by their slaughter of the minke whale.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whenever we pass conservation measures, such as those to stop the slaughter of whales, commerce finds a loophole. Exactly the same will happen if the ban on ivory sales is successful. In a short time, someone will say that it is necessary to slaughter some African elephants for scientific reasons, and that will rapidly become a basis for commerce.
The licence must state clearly what volume of minerals can be extracted under research conditions. Minerals that are extracted for sample purposes should not become the property of the commercial organisation that dug them out, but of the licence commission, so that there can be no commercial benefit in someone extracting excessive quantities, perhaps beyond the terms of the licence.
What I propose in amendment No. 50 may already be covered in the Bill or in regulations. I read the Bill carefully during the weekend and I did not see any such provision, so I tabled the amendment. It is obvious that, if the convention system is to work—some people believe that it can—and punishment is to be meted out to those who wilfully destroy the environment and go beyond the licence, they must be denied the opportunity to commit those crimes again.
Amendment No. 50 would not permit such people to apply for a licence under their own name. Amendment No. 47 proposes that the names of all such people should be submitted to the Secretary of State. There is, therefore, the possibility of strict control of what is happening to the environment.
Amendments Nos. 31 and 45 are similar. Non-governmental organisations must have a right of inspection. Without Greenpeace's work in the Antarctic and the

North sea on nuclear dumping, for example, we would not know what is happening. It is under-resourced, but I pay tribute to its contribution to monitoring. It has shown that the damage that has already been done to the Antarctic environment would be a thousand times worse as a result of mineral exploration. It is therefore essential that non-governmental organisations should be able to visit sites.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East proposed a commission which is not commercially dominated. I would not have much confidence in an Antarctic environmental protection agency whose board members were representatives of all the major oil and mining companies in the world. They would quietly carve the Antarctic up between them. Such an agency has to include people with no commercial interest but with a deep scientific knowledge of the continent. Sir Peter Scott would make an excellent member of such a commission.
Non-governmental organisations must have the right to investigate and inquire into what is going on. Amendment No. 45 proposes:
Before any licence is operated there shall be an opportunity for environmental protection groups to visit the site(s) and at any other time during the life of the licence.".
At present, if Greenpeace undertakes another expedition around the Antarctic to visit all the sites—I hope that it does—it does not have to be allowed to visit all of them or to go into all the detail necessary to write a report. It experienced some difficulty at some scientific sites that it visited during its last expedition in 1987–88.
Amendment No. 51, which is crucial too, refers to the number of inspectors who shall be appointed. Perhaps due to an oversight, the Minister did not reply to that point earlier; perhaps he will this time. Those of us who have been active in trade union matters for many years have experienced the factories inspectorate. It is not that we dislike it; it is just that we find it inadequate. There are never enough inspectors, and they do not come often enough. The employers often know when they are coming, in any case. We want a large number of independent inspectors who can visit not only the sites licensed by the national Governments on their territorial claims, but every other site throughout the continent. We want them to communicate what they find every six months. Their report will give an account of all activities in that time.
This may seem expensive and excessive, but the issue is so important that we need this degree and regularity of reporting. If we let commerce dominate the commission and the exploration that goes on, and let it own the information that it obtains, that will lead to ecological disaster. Unlike temperate climates, in which partial recovery from such disaster is possible, in the Antarctic there can be none.
In Antarctica one can see the petrified remains of a husky that Captain Robert Scott rather short-sightedly destroyed. Had he used dogs instead of ponies, he might have got to the south pole, probably before Amundsen, who relied entirely on dogs. Scott ended up towing his sledges himself. The dog is petrified in the ice for ever more because it was frozen suddenly. It is mummified, like an Egyptian mummy or like the bodies found in the northern deserts of Chile. So any serious spillage would not biologically degrade as it would in a more temperate clime—it would remain. Oil would freeze into the ice for ever more, just as any other pollutant would.
I hope that the Minister accepts that our amendments are designed to protect this fragile environment. We recognise the work done in the past by the British Antarctic survey, which I do not want to be involved in private enterprise. It should be entirely publicly funded and in the public domain. We applaud the work done by Greenpeace to draw to our attention the fragility of the Antarctic environment.
When Captain Cook first set eyes on the Antarctic, he realised what a special, fragile place it was. Tragically, he did not live long enough to be able to write enough about his discoveries, but all the signs from his letters and diaries are that he was appalled at what was done afterwards to the places that he discovered—in a European sense—in the name of commerce.
I hope that tonight we will decide to play our part in protecting the Antarctic and not to allow it to be divided up into national claims, and subdivided into commercial claims. I hope that we shall support the idea of a world environmental park, and eventually take the continent out of the hands of the treaty nations and make it part of a truly international park, owned for ever through the United Nations, and exploited never.

Mr. Tony Banks: It was appropriate that as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned the "Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner", the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) seized his cue and rose to make a speech. Conservative Members will know that the opening lines go:
It is an ancient Mariner
And he stoppeth one of three.
`By thy long grey beard and glittering eye, Now wherefore stopp'st thou me?
The right hon. Gentleman has a fine grey beard and a glittering eye. I am glad that he stopped us, because he has shown us that we were right to have said all along that the Bill is about exploitation—something that the Minister has been denying. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that he thinks that we should extract the wealth of the Antarctic for the benefit of the world. That is not what we want to do. We do not accept that that is necessary. The Bill has no mechanisms that make it likely that the wealth that is exploited is used for the benefit of mankind. Multinational mining companies will go in there and make money for their shareholders.

Mr. Anderson: My hon. Friend may have forgotten the debates in the other place, in which the Government spokesman let the cat out of the bag. He said that the objective of the Government was to get the largest possible share of the economic returns from the activities in the Antarctic.

Mr. Banks: It was always clear to us, but it is becoming manifestly clear to all, that whatever the Minister is saying, for whatever reason he is saying it, we are not being given the whole story. We cannot accept that this is only about exploring, not exploitation. The Bill talks about exploration, but that is only the thin end of a very obvious wedge. The Minister cannot expect us to accept his bland statements, which do not match what was said in another place, or by the right hon. Member for Pavilion. In his robust and honest way, the right hon. Gentleman stated what we know to be the philosophy behind the Bill. We are indebted to him.
The Bill has no mechanisms for making sure that if the mineral resources of the Antartic are properly explored—that is what we are moving towards with the Bill, which is merely the first step in the softly, softly approach to exploitation—mankind as a whole will benefit. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the trickle effect, which the Prime Minister has mentioned—one allows the people at the top to make vast sums of money and, magically, it will trickle through to everyone. We know that that does not work.
Why should we exploit the resources of the Antarctic? As far as I can see, there is no shortage of the minerals that are in the Antarctic. They are in abundance everywhere, waiting to be exploited. Why do we need to move to virgin territory? The right hon. Gentleman said that minerals are difficult to get out, but mining technology is changing. Lessons have been learnt in Alaska by British Petroleum and other mining companies, so they have the expertise to get over many of the difficulties of extracting minerals from the Antarctic. Such expertise is increasing by the day. There is no economic reason for such exploitation, and it is not needed to benefit the world.
We know what would happen, and I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman knows it, too. If there is exploitation, there will be pollution. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth has already described in some detail the destruction of the wildlife in the area, with consequences that we are not competent to judge. We at least know from experience of events elsewhere that when human beings start exploiting, they pollute and destroy. There is no reason for us to believe that anything (Efferent will happen in the Antarctic, if there is the exploitation that the right hon. Member for Pavilion expects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is not only not in his place now, but he is not with us on this Bill, which is a disappointment to Labour Members. As he said, we usually stand shoulder to shoulder on matters such as this. I still find it difficult to grasp his position on the Bill. I note that my hon. Friend comes timely upon his entrance. I can now say to him directly that I am disappointed that he is not with us. He said that the agreement is the best that we can get. He said, in effect, that there will be exploitation and that it is better that it should be regulated. That comes close to what the Minister is saying. Surely that is a counsel of despair—as we cannot stop it, let us regulate it. I think that we can stop it. We can take great heart from the position adopted by the Australian and French Governments, and by the Belgians. There is the possibility of establishing an international wilderness reserve because of what has been said in Australia and by President Mitterrand.
There has been rapid change since the Bill appeared in another place. There was a massive green vote in the Euro elections, and I do not believe that that was a vote for the Green party. Instead, it was a declaration by the electorate that the environment is at the top of the political agenda. The time is ripe for us to return to the drawing board. Let us reject the Bill and re-examine these matters.

Mr. Dalyell: Who, physically, is to keep out unwelcome intruders in the Antarctic?

Mr. Banks: That is something that can be developed. If an international wilderness reserve is declared in the Antarctic, under the supervision of the United Nations, for example, or a special environmental protection agency,


all the countries that have an interest in the Antarctic could fund the necessary policing to ensure that intruders are kept out and that the area is used for scientific research that is in the interests of mankind. We do not need exploitation by multinational mineral companies. Let us have scientific exploration in the name of true science, of real knowledge. We can learn from the past. Much that remains frozen in the permafrost would tell us a great deal about the early days of the planet. To destroy all that to extract base metals and oil, which exist in abundance elsewhere, would be destruction on the grand scale.
If there is a political will among the nations to preserve the Antarctic as an international wilderness reserve, the means can be found. That is what national or international politics are all about. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow takes such a defeatist attitude. He is such a spirited attacker of the abuse that he sees in this country. It is strange that he is not prepared to defend the Antarctic in the robust way that he has tried to defend the rain forests of Brazil. I am surprised at my hon. Friend, but I am sure that we shall be able to talk him round.
The climate of opinion has changed since the Bill emerged in another place. The declaration at the G7 summit in Paris was the final piece of evidence that we needed. It was unique for such a group of countries to produce a statement in which the environment played such a major role. That is why we ask the Minister to examine the amendments and to meet our point.
If amendment No. 17 were accepted, it would establish a British Antarctic Licensing Commission—

Mr. Corbyn: It occurs to me that the Group of Seven's declaration was essentially one of setting enterprise loose on the remaining open spaces of the world so that it could destroy them. I accept, of course, that it states at the end that it is concerned about the environment. With the policies that most of the Seven are following, it should be concerned about it.

Mr. Banks: That is true, but at least the Seven have had to pay lip service to the environment. That is something that they have not done previously. It is for national Parliaments and public opinion to turn the lip service of G7 into political reality. World opinion on environmental matters is changing, and it is in that hopeful climate that we can move forward.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the G7 statement. Although it acknowledges the need for environmental protection, it says that it should be scientifically well founded and economically well based, or words to that effect. Does my hon. Friend agree that the words "economically well based" could be dangerous? If it proves easier to exploit the resources in the Antarctic than in other land masses, the economic base becomes one of cost. There may be no economic base at all in protecting the environment; indeed, there may be an economic penalty. The G7 declaration could simply be dangerous lip service.

Mr. Banks: The matter becomes more complicated. We could be talking about the difference between short-term and long-term economic gain. There could be a great deal of long-term economic gain from leaving the resources unexploited because that would save all the horrendous

problems of over-industrialisation and over-exploitation that are coming home to Europe and other parts of the world.
I am not so green as to believe that all are genuine in their sudden conversion. Once again it is a case of politicians, whether in Britain or elsewhere, understanding votes. They have recognised the sea change in world opinion that is pushing environmental matters to the top of the political agenda. It would be a very, very stupid politician—there are many of them around—who wilfully chose to ignore that public demand. I repeat that the climate is different from that which existed when the Bill first surfaced.
Amendment No. 19 is exceedingly long, but it tests the Government's sincerity. It proposes that an environmental impact statement be attached to any form of exploration in the Antarctic. The EEC has proposed that any form of environmental scheme should have an impact assessment attached to it. Even in this House, we have said that private Bills relating to dock work and the building of railways should have environmental impact asessments attached to them. That is in line with EEC proposals, and something which the Government will no doubt follow. It would be appropriate to apply that to the Antarctic.
I do not want to go into detail about the amendment. I hope that the Minister has read it. If he accepts it, that will show the House that what he has been saying is what lies behind the Bill, not what has been said in another place and by the right hon. Member for Pavilion. There is a dichotomy between what the Minister has said in Committee and today and what was said by the right hon. Member for Pavilion. I hope that the Minister will tell the House why his right hon. Friend is wrong. If he is not wrong, the Minister would be well advised to accept the amendment.

11 pm

Mr. Eggar: It may be for the convenience of the House if I first deal with the points made by Greenpeace. It states in its letter that the convention means that in the interim there will be no international supervision of prospecting activities. That is wrong while the moratorium survives in the period prior to the convention coming into force.
Greenpeace asks who will ensure that prospectors comply with the convention in the area of overlapping claims, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). As I said in Committee, each of the three states will be able to ensure that their nationals, and anyone else in their claimed territories, comply with the convention—and each state will be able to inspect the other licensees' activities. Greenpeace asks also who will ensure that non-United Kingdom nationals will not be engaged in explorations in United-Kingdom claimed territory. Greenpeace has lost sight of the fact that the convention is specifically designed to prevent exploration until a decision is reached by consensus.
Greenpeace states that prospecting could be a hazardous undertaking. It is of course right—and that is precisely the reason why the convention has been negiotated and why we want to ratify it. Greenpeace makes the nonsensical assertion that United Kingdom implementing legislation will be only as good as the worst implementing legislation in another country. That is incorrect.
Finally, Greenpeace claims that we shall be unable to control events in our own Antarctic territory. To the contrary: the convention provides the means to do so in respect of mining.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Eggar: No. I am sorry, but I shall not give way.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made a brave speech, which showed that he has followed events in the Antarctic for a considerable number of years. Without wishing to offend any other right hon. or hon. Member, the hon. Member for Linlithgow knows most about Antarctica. He has studied the situation there and followed the negotiations on the convention over a long period of time.
The hon. Gentleman asked me, quite reasonably, to comment on Sir Peter Scott's letter to right hon. and hon. Members. He pointed out that the other son of that famous pair, his noble Friend Lord Shackleton made in another place a strong speech in support of the Bill. Sir Peter Scott's letter was similar to that which he wrote to The Times. A few days after it was published, Mr. Nigel Bonner, who at one time was deputy director of the British Antarctic survey, replied. It may assist the hon. Member for Linlithgow and other right hon. and hon. Members if I quote the critical paragraph of Mr. Bonner's letter:
Without CRAMRA"—
the convention—
and without a World Park, some governments may regard themselves as unrestricted in the search for minerals. Sir Peter and Australia may find that by refusing to support CRAMRA, they have deprived Antarctica of the very protection they wish it to receive.
That is the bald answer to Sir Peter Scott.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked also about rubbish disposal. I agree with him that there is a critical difference between rubbish disposal and sewage. I was trying to make the point that there is little to distinguish between the excrement of gentoo penguins and that of humans. Rubbish disposal relating to scientific discovery is a significant problem in Antarctica, and for that reason we and other parties to the Antarctic treaty have been working on an agreement to govern rubbish disposal there, which will be discussed at the meeting in Paris in October.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), whose questions I always try to answer, raised the issue of inspectors. The Government intend to appoint sufficient inspectors, and we shall have to examine the particular terms of the licence application to ensure that we have the right inspectors in each case. The Bill makes it clear that inspectors will be appointed on an ad hoc basis to deal with specific licence applications
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said, rightly, that Opposition amendment No. 19 goes to the core of the difference between the Opposition and the Government. There is no difference of principle between the Government and the Opposition: we both wish to ensure that the necessary environmental safeguards exist in Antarctica. The amendment, however, provides us with a number of difficulties.
First, the proposed procedures simply are not consistent with the convention. Secondly, and very critically, the adoption in British law of any such procedures at this stage would bind the hands of future negotiators in the commission who sought to elaborate on

reasonable and acceptable environment impact assessment procedures. The hon. Gentleman, I think, recognises that those procedures are critical.

Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister saying, in terms, that any of the criteria set out in the amendment are unacceptable?

Mr. Eggar: What I am saying is that it is entirely wrong to seek to bind the negotiators in the way proposed in the amendment.
Other features of the amendment—which the hon. Gentleman himself has said is based on domestic legislation—are not likely to be appropriate: rules that apply in Swansea are not necessarily appropriate in Antarctica. Many elements in that amendment will, however, be covered. This brings us back to what was said in Committee should the need for flexibility—the need to consider specific approaches in detail rather than imposing an inflexible framework.
For those reasons, the Government are unable to accept the amendment, and others in the group whose intent is similar.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 190.

Division No. 301]
[11.07 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Beggs, Roy
McFall, John


Beith, A. J.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Maclennan, Robert


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McWilliam, John


Buckley, George J.
Madden, Max


Callaghan, Jim
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mallon, Seamus


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Meale, Alan


Clelland, David
Michael, Alun


Cryer, Bob
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Darling, Alistair
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Dewar, Donald
Nellist, Dave


Dixon, Don
Parry, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Patchett, Terry


Duffy, A. E. P.
Pike, Peter L.


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Primarolo, Dawn


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Richardson, Jo


Flannery, Martin
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Fyfe, Maria
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Gordon, Mildred
Spearing, Nigel


Graham, Thomas
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hardy, Peter
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Haynes, Frank
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Home Robertson, John
Turner, Dennis


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Vaz, Keith


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Wallace, James


Howells, Geraint
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Illsley, Eric
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Wilson, Brian


Kennedy, Charles
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kirkwood, Archy
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Leadbitter, Ted



Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Livingstone, Ken
Mr. Elliot Morley and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


Livsey, Richard





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Allason, Rupert
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Ashby, David


Amess, David
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Amos, Alan
Batiste, Spencer


Arbuthnot, James
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony






Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kilfedder, James


Benyon, W.
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Knapman, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Knowles, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Latham, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Lightbown, David


Bowis, John
Lilley, Peter


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lord, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Bright, Graham
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Malins, Humfrey


Budgen, Nicholas
Mans, Keith


Burns, Simon
Maples, John


Burt, Alistair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Butcher, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Butterfill, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Carrington, Matthew
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Carttiss, Michael
Miller, Sir Hal


Cash, William
Mills, lain


Chapman, Sydney
Miscampbell, Norman


Chope, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Mitchell, Sir David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Monro, Sir Hector


Cope, Rt Hon John
Morrison, Sir Charles


Couchman, James
Moss, Malcolm


Cran, James
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Nelson, Anthony


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Neubert, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Nicholls, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Devlin, Tim
Norris, Steve


Dorrell, Stephen
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Oppenheim, Phillip


Dover, Den
Page, Richard


Durant, Tony
Paice, James


Eggar, Tim
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Emery, Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Evennett, David
Portillo, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Favell, Tony
Raffan, Keith


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Fishburn, John Dudley
Redwood, John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Rhodes James, Robert


Fox, Sir Marcus
Roe, Mrs Marion


Franks, Cecil
Rowe, Andrew


Freeman, Roger
Sackville, Hon Tom


French, Douglas
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gale, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gill, Christopher
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Gow, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Shersby, Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Gregory, Conal
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Speed, Keith


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Hague, William
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Stern, Michael


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Stevens, Lewis


Harris, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hawkins, Christopher
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hayes, Jerry
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Stokes, Sir John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Sumberg, David


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Summerson, Hugo


Hunter, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Irvine, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Jessel, Toby
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Thurnham, Peter


Key, Robert
Townend, John (Bridlington)





Twinn, Dr Ian
Wiggin, Jerry


Viggers, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wilshire, David


Waller, Gary
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Winterton, Nicholas


Warren, Kenneth
Wood, Timothy


Watts, John
Yeo, Tim


Wells, Bowen



Wheeler, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitney, Ray
Mr. David Maclean and Mr. John M. Taylor.


Widdecombe, Ann

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 8

APPOINTMENT OF INSPECTORS

Amendment proposed: No. 36, in page 4, at end add
'among whom shall be individuals nominated by either or both national or international organizations which have standing in the field of environmental protection.'—[Mr.Hardy.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 66, Noes 189.

Division No. 302]
[11.19 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Livingstone, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Livsey, Richard


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Beggs, Roy
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Beith, A. J.
Macdonald, Calum A.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McFall, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Buckley, George J.
Maclennan, Robert


Callaghan, Jim
McWilliam, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Madden, Max


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Clay, Bob
Meale, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Michael, Alun


Cryer, Bob
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Darling, Alistair
Mowlam, Marjorie


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Nellist, Dave


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Parry, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Patchett, Terry


Dixon, Don
Pike, Peter L.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Primarolo, Dawn


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Richardson, Jo


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Skinner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Fyfe, Maria
Spearing, Nigel


Golding, Mrs Llin
Vaz, Keith


Gordon, Mildred
Wallace, James


Graham, Thomas
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Haynes, Frank
Wigley, Dafydd


Home Robertson, John
Wilson, Brian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howells, Geraint
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Illsley, Eric



Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Peter Hardy and Mr. Elliot Morley


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Allason, Rupert
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Boswell, Tim


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter


Amos, Alan
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Arbuthnot, James
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowis, John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Ashby, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brazier, Julian


Batiste, Spencer
Bright, Graham


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Budgen, Nicholas


Benyon, W.
Burns, Simon


Bevan, David Gilroy
Burt, Alistair






Butcher, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butterfill, John
Hague, William


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cash, William
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Chapman, Sydney
Harris, David


Chope, Christopher
Hawkins, Christopher


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayes, Jerry


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cope, Rt Hon John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cran, James
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Irvine, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kilfedder, James


Dover, Den
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Durant, Tony
Knapman, Roger


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evennett, David
Knowles, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Latham, Michael


Favell, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lightbown, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Peter


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Franks, Cecil
Lord, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gale, Roger
Maclean, David


Gill, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gow, Ian
Malins, Humfrey


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mans, Keith


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maples, John


Gregory, Conal
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)





Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Miller, Sir Hal
Stevens, Lewis


Mills, lain
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Mitchell, Sir David
Stokes, Sir John


Monro, Sir Hector
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Sumberg, David


Moss, Malcolm
Summerson, Hugo


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Neubert, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Norris, Steve
Thurnham, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Paice, James
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Portillo, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Powell, William (Corby)
Watts, John


Raffan, Keith
Wells, Bowen


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wheeler, John


Redwood, John
Whitney, Ray


Rhodes James, Robert
Widdecombe, Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wiggin, Jerry


Rowe, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wilshire, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Winterton, Nicholas


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Yeo, Tim


Skeet, Sir Trevor



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Noes:


Speed, Keith
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and Mr. Tom Sackville.


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Question accordingly negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr.Eggar.]

Mr. Anderson: Although we are grateful to the Government for acceding to the request for a debate, we would not have had a debate in prime time if it had not been for the insistence of the Opposition. The Government had hoped that this important Bill would glide through on a sea of consensus. I hope that the Government now recognise that the debate has been a worthwhile exercise which has highlighted many of the key problems in this important area.
For me, the debate has been an education. It has revealed the deep reservoir of knowledge among my hon. Friends on this matter as on so many others. We accept that if there is to be prospecting there must be proper safeguards. As we have made clear throughout, our preferred option is the creation of a wilderness park, but because of the provisions in the Bill, that option is not available to the House.
We recognise that the climate of world and, indeed, domestic opinion has altered in respect of environmental questions. That is reflected particularly in the response of Australia. Hence, what seemed unattainable a few months ago, is now within reach. We were much moved by the evidence of people such as Sir Peter Scott who wrote to all hon. Members today.
The Government have not adjusted to the new circumstances. There is an Australian veto, and Australia is not alone. She has been joined by the French. I gave the Minister chapter and verse on that in Committee. Now we understand that the Belgians have joined the French in refusing to accede to the convention. As I have said, we would prefer a wilderness park and our policy would be to work with the Australians and others for an environmental protection convention.
In Committee we saw our role as basically to "green" the Bill as far as possible, to ensure greater control and supervision and stricter enforcement and to reduce as far as possible the discretion available to the Minister, who in his usual dulcet and soothing tones said, "Trust in me-it will all be all right on the night." We were not prepared to give the Minister the blank cheque that he sought.
One basic difference between the Opposition and the Government is that the Government have said throughout that we are discussing prospecting and that the Opposition must accept that this is a limited Bill. That is like the housemaid's argument that it is only a small baby. Our reaction was wholly sceptical. As we have said, if multinational companies are prepared to lay out substantial amounts of shareholders' funds on prospecting, it must be the first stage of a two or three-stage operation. As my hon. Friend for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has said, they are not doing it as charities, but with the clear expectation that they will be able to move on to subsequent stages. There is what is known in our domestic planning context as a creeping commitment. It is rather a unique process for the Government to bring to the House tonight, but it is the first stage of what is clearly a multi-stage operation, with the second and third stages inevitably to follow. We therefore expressed scepticism about the Government's "softly, softly" approach.
I paraphrased earlier what Lord Glenarthur said on behalf of the Government in the other place. He said that, throughout the negotiations, the Government's motive had been to maximise the commercial advantages to British companies of the exploitation of the Antarctic. The Government's position was starkly revealed. All the Government's soothing arguments about concern for the environment must be seen in the context of that clear admission by their spokesman in the other place. We recognise, of course, that any loophole will be exploited and that the Government have taken a rather starry-eyed view. We are worried about the loopholes with respect to offshore companies and we have, therefore, proposed the use of inspectors, the establishment of a commission and the environmental impact survey.
We remain convinced that there has been a sea change in world opinion and, indeed, in domestic opinion in respect of green and environmental issues. However much the green tendency is derided by the Minister, who is supposedly responsible for green questions, the new combination of forces will probably make the Bill entirely non-operative because of the Australian veto. There is a new momentum generally on environmental issues and the Government should properly have come to the House, in the light of those changed and new circumstances, and revealed their contingency plans on the basis that, when the contracting parties meet in October, Australia will exercise its veto—followed by other countries such as France and Belgium. The Government cannot respond as though nothing has changed and they need not change with it. On basic issues, such as the future of the Antarctic, we believe that we have to choose and we, the Opposition, are confident that we have chosen correctly.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I presume that it is almost inevitable with such a Bill that much time is spent in criticising it for not covering some areas which it might have included or in suggesting that it is not as strong as it might have been in those areas that it does perceive to control. I suggest, however, that it is important to look at the Bill as it is written—the Bill that the House has been considering in Committee and in later stages. High-sounding phrases regarding the environment, whether in the Antarctic or anywhere else, will not bring any protection. What is necessary is for the Bill to provide for a sovereign Government to exercise their power over their corporate citizens in those areas where they have authority. That, in the long run, is the only way to achieve effective protection for the environment in any part of the world.
There is nothing in the Bill that will guarantee that the Antarctic will remain pure and unsullied for ever. It would be hypocritical for the House to pass a resolution that suggested that it was within our power and remit to insist upon that. Those of us who have looked at the Bill as the means of doing what is possible as early as possible have sought to ensure that the British Government will do their level best to protect the environment of those areas over which we have authority for the benefit of our people and that of all others.
The tenor of tonight's debate has meant that the Bill as a whole has not been considered, but those who re-read our debates will, given the context of the Bill, decide that it deserves the support of the House and general support, particularly of those who care about the environment.

Mr. Morley: I know that it is late and that some people have asked why we have spent so much time discussing an issue that concerns a bunch of penguins. It is important, however, and it will not come before the house again for many years. It also concerns our global future, as the Antarctic represents the last unspoilt wilderness on this planet. It has a vital part to play in the complete ecology of our planet and it must continue to be protected in its entirety rather than be subjected to the risks that will come with being opened up for commercial exploitation.
Throughout the passage of the Bill the argument has been that it is just about prospecting and identifying what is there. If we pass the Bill and we agree to the convention on minerals, the door will be open for the commercial exploitation of the Antarctic—that is the inevitable outcome.
The basic argument is that the British Government should support the Bill and the convention as there are no alternative means of stopping the uncontrolled exploitation of Antarctica. There is a risk of such exploitation and it is important that it is controlled, but that does not mean that we should accept a convention on mineral exploitation. The same end could be achieved by arguing for a world wilderness park in the Antarctic under the control of the United Nations. That idea is not as far-fetched as some Conservative Members might think.
I remind the Minister that the United States, the Soviet Union, Belgium, South Africa, Japan, Poland and the Federal Republic of Germany do not currently recognise any sovereign claim to any part of the Antarctic. Thus, a group of powerful, influential nations do not recognise any claim to that continent. That is a good basis for moving towards the idea of a world wilderness park.
As long ago as 1948, the United States proposed a condominium of joint sovereignty. That idea was later supported by India and New Zealand, who argued that instead of a condominium of nations, the Antarctic should be subject to United Nations control. The idea of a world wilderness park under United Nations control is not new and it already has the basis of support.
Australia has argued that we should have a world wilderness park, and there is some dispute over whether France has taken the same line. I took the trouble to look up the French statements. On 20 June a joint statement was made by Mr. Hawke and President Mitterrand in which they called for the establishment of such a park. The French support the Australians, who have suggested the only viable means by which to defend the Antarctic's interests.
The convention on the exploitation of marine resources was welcome as it controlled, to some extent, the fisheries of the Antarctic. We can see how it works, however, and some of the weaknesses which I believe will emerge with any convention on mineral exploration. With regard to the convention on marine resources, for some species we need a ban on their being fished. One is the Antarctic cod, notothenia rossii, which has been fished to the verge of extinction. Although scientists agree on the need for a ban, under the convention, one was vetoed by Japan and Russia. That comes as no surprise in view of their record on whaling, but it demonstrates that, even when there is a convention, there are still problems with national needs and priorities.
A world park could be an exciting and viable venture. If the Government argued for it, and did not maintain their present stance, it would redound to their credit. In 1972, the idea of a world park was supported by the world conference of national parks. It was also supported by New Zealand in 1975. I realise that New Zealand has since changed its view, but I understand that there are signs that it could be persuaded to support Australia and France.
The north-south issue is involved here. An increasing number of the southern nations argue that they should have a share of Antarctica, which was carved up when many Third world countries were colonies of the richer northern countries. That is a further complication and another dimension when negotiating and policing such a treaty. It is also an argument for having a world park
Organisations such as Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund for Nature—we have seen the letter from Sir Peter Scott—support the concept. In France recently, 200,000 people signed a petition which supports the concept of a world park. I suspect that a similar petition in Britain would easily command such support. We know that accidents are not preventable and of the terrible impact of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska.
An Argentine ship, the Bahia Paraiso, recently went aground in Antarctica. It caused immense damage. It spilt 250,000 gallons of diesel oil which was in drums and therefore less damaging than if it had been in a tanker which ruptured its tanks. Nevertheless, New Zealand conservationists who went to the scene of the accident said that the damage from the oil spill will be visible for 100 years because it takes oil up to 100 times longer to break down in Antarctica than in more temperate climates. Cath Wallace, New Zealand's convener of the Antarctica and southern oceans coalition, said that it was only a matter of time before a large oil spill seriously upset Antarctica's fragile ecology.
In Britain, forecasts of major damage were made by Mr. Bernard Moran of the British Antarctic survey in Cambridge. He said that, as traffic in the Antarctic increased, there was a growing risk of similar incidents. The more exploration and development of the Antarctic there is, the more likely it is that there will be accidents.
We have heard that the Group of Seven recently argued that action should be taken to reduce the greenhouse effect. Why, if the Government agree with the G7 nations that we should co-operate to reduce the greenhouse effect, do they also argue that we should open the Antarctic for exploration of its non-renewable resources? Would it not make more sense to argue that we should concentrate on renewable energy and other resources rather than open the Antarctic, which will be damaging and, even with the best will in the world, only a short-term solution to problems such as we have in Britain?
There is a statue in the Antarctic of Richard Byrd, one of America's greatest Antarctic explorers. On its base the legend reads:
I am hopeful that Antarctica in its symbolic robe of white will shine forth as a continent of peace as nations work together there in the cause of science.
That is what we want for the Antarctic. We do not want the thin end of the wedge to be introduced by allowing the multinational companies to exploit the place.
In the end, the convention will not protect the Antarctic. It will protect it only if one regards the exploitation of its minerals as inevitable. But t is not inevitable: there is another option. Things have changed


since the negotiations on the convention started. Large, influential countries are arguing for a world park. The convention may not be ratified, but we cannot argue that if there is no agreement there will be unrestricted exploration. I accept that that is a risk, but the treaty has been in place since 1959 and it has not been breached by a single nation exploring for minerals. So why cannot the moratorium of 1959 be maintained while we switch the discussion away from the convention towards the idea of a world park? That is a more imaginative and realistic prospect, and future generations would thank us for it, not for what we are doing tonight.

Mr. Hardy: I want to endorse the approach adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). Because of his speech, I need not address the House at great length.
These are the last kickings of colonialism. I am not suggesting that the northern nations should opt out. Speaking in the House during the Falklands war, I pointed out that South Georgia is as far from Buenos Aires as London is from Athens. This resource should not be left to the control or sovereignty of the southern states, either. As posterity will confirm, the only correct answer is to make the continent an international resource, recognising that the environment is far more important than any mineral resource.
The position adopted by Australia and France, which would readily be followed by a number of nations, is perfectly legitimate and logical. It is a matter of deep regret that the United Kingdom has once again forfeited its position as a world leader in environmental matters in favour of that of laggard.
As a result of this debate and the House's decision tonight, there will be a scramble to unlock the resources of the Antarctic and to maintain the profligate approach that humanity has adopted to the planet's resources. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said, we could take a more conservationist line on energy and fuel. We could and should be far keener and more enthusiastic about recycling mineral resources; but so long as those resources can be easily found and profitably extracted, the often perfectly reasonable lust of commercial organisations to extract them as quickly and rapaciously as possible will prevail.
It must be the duty of politicians to inject other considerations into the decision-making process. I regret that the considerations that will be injected into the Antarctic debate will be unsatisfactory. In some ways I regret the Government's failure to accept the advice offered to them by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe. They desperately need to win friends. As a party politician, I should rejoice when I see the Government forfeiting support and respect. If they carry on with the approach that the Bill embodies, they deserve to forfeit respect. They will be criticised for this measure not merely in our time but for many years to come.

Mr. Dalyell: A marker should be put down on the urgent need for an international secretariat to look after the Antarctic, and to carry out the day-to-day work of the convention.

Mr. Tony Banks: Most Labour Members remain opposed to the Bill. We tried, both in Committee and on Report, to improve it, but the Government have not been prepared to do anything to meet the fears that we expressed through our amendments.
The philosophy behind the Bill is clear. In effect, the Government have said that, because they cannot stop the move towards exploitation of mineral resources in the Antarctic, they should move to regulate such exploitation.

Mr. Eggar: indicated dissent.

Mr. Banks: The Minister shakes his head, as he is entitled to do, but he knows that, although the Bill is supposed to be about exploration, we shall be talking about exploitation in the end. The Bill is an early warning and we are looking beyond it to what we know will shortly follow it.
If regulation is needed because nothing can be done to stop future exploitation, that attitude is, at best, a counsel of despair. We think that it is more. At worst, it is the green light for mineral exploitation, and for the multinationals to move into the Antarctic. The Government are saying that they are willing for the Antarctic to be exploited at some future date.
Despite being asked to do so several times, the Minister has not defined either exploration or exploitation, and there is no such definition in the Bill. As Labour Members have said, the Bill is the thin end of an obvious wedge. No company that has a commitment to its shareholders will become involved in exploration without the possibility of exploitation. We have made it clear that we are not against scientific investigation, as there is so much still to be learned. The Antarctic has to deliver up many secrets that will teach us both about the past and how to avoid some of the obvious mistakes that we might make in the future.
If the Bill were about scientific research and controlling and regulating such research, we would be far more enthusiastic about it. However, it is not. It is about multinational companies that will not be going in for scientific exploration for altrustic reasons. They will be doing it because they are looking for future exploitation. That is why we continue to oppose the Bill.
The Bill provides further proof that the greening of the Government is nothing more than a shallow sham. The Prime Minister recently made a speech in France, in which she said:
There are rights that you can't take back but there are people who talk about the right to social protection. This is not a right in itself. You don't have the right to a good environment, either.
That is a fine example for the green goddess to be setting the world. She went on to talk about what happens in an earthquake, a hurricane, a flood or a fire. Obviously we are talking not about natural calamities but of man-made calamities, which are the hidden part of the Bill. I believe that they will be revealed in due course.
The Government should follow the recently set examples of the Governments of Australia and France and the statements that are being made by the Belgian


Government about declaring the Antarctic an international wilderness reserve under the jurisdiction of the United Nations. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked how we could enforce such a reserve. My hon. Friends and I say that that could best be done through the United Nations, and the setting up of a special environmental agency, which would be funded by the major industrial nations such as the United Kingdom. We are moving towards the time when the United Nations must set up an environmental protection force and an environmental disaster force. Ecological disaster worries us more now than at any other time.
The Antarctic is one of the last great unspoiled areas of the planet. It is significant in terms of the ecological balance of the world and it is still not fully understood. There are still many secrets for the Antarctic to yield. That is why we would support proper and genuine scientific research, but not exploration that is a thinly veiled disguise for future commercial exploitation. We must preserve and protect the Antarctic and prohibit all exploration leading to exploitation.
Everyone is so much more attuned to what is happening nowadays. We see all around us the consequences of past over-exploitation of the environment. Terms such as "the greenhouse effect" have crept into everyday language around the world. We are aware of polluted rivers and polluted seas. Rotting algae has been discovered in the Adriatic and it is putting tourists off swimming from the beaches. The authorities do not know how it got there, but they know that it is something to do with pollution. We must be aware of the great dangers that face the planet, which essentially have been created by our own activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow talks about the destruction of the rain forests and rightly brings the issue to our attention day by day. There is acid rain. Cancers and brain damage are known to be caused by contact with lead. How much more evidence do we need in Britain that it is our past follies that have caused the litany of environmental disasters that now face us?
Yet we are contemplating moving in to one of the last great unspoiled areas of the world without knowing the consequences that will flow from such a decision. We oppose the Bill because we want to preserve the planet. The green party is to be found on the Opposition Benches. The only thing that is green about the Government are the empty Benches on their side of the House. It is—[Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) and some of his hon. Friends have woken up. I assumed that his somnambulant position was a form of political osmosis, which the hon. Gentleman had assumed in the hope that somehow information would seep through the green leather into his brain. I am glad that I have woken him up. I am saying that the Bill will add only to the great possibility of major environmental and ecological disasters. If that does not concern the hon. Member for Selly Oak, I do not know what does. That is why we oppose the Bill and that is why we shall vote against its Third Reading.

Mr. Keith Speed: I was not moved to intervene in the consideration of the Bill, but having heard some of the speeches of Labour Members I shall make a short contribution. I cannot speak with great knowledge of

the Antarctic—the furthest south I have been is to the Falklands—but I can speak with some knowledge of Longyearben in Spitsbergen, having been there just seven weeks ago. I suppose that in Labour Members' terms that place has been exploited. It is between 78 deg and 82 deg north.
About 1 million tonnes of coal is mined there annually, and not a pound of it at a profit. It is mined jointly, at a considerable loss, by the Norwegians who have one mine—the only one in Norway—with about 1,000 miners and the Soviet Union, which has the other mine with about 2,000 miners. They both make fantastic losses.
I saw both mines and their settlements and there was not the terrible pollution that we have heard about today. I was fortunate to fly around the thousands of square miles of Spitsbergen and the surrounding islands and saw the flora and fauna. There has been a mining operation there for many years, going right back to the Spitsbergen treaty of 1920. All the signatories have the right to carry out not only scientific investigation but the exploitation referred to today.
I yield to no one in saying that we do not wish to rape the Antarctic or any other area, but there must be a sense of balance. Those who have seen what is happening in Longyearben and Spitsbergen know that even after 40, 50 or 60 years of intensive exploitation through mining the consequences have not been those suggested in the hysterical speeches of Opposition Members. I do not believe that the Bill will cause anything like the catastrophe that they forecast.
Conservative Members are as concerned as anybody about the ecology of the south Atlantic and the Antarctic. I reject the Opposition's hysterical nonsense. They should go and see what has happened over 40 years of extensive mining, properly carried out on a basis of co-operation and partnership between Norway and the Soviet Union.
Opposition Members referred to the Bill's effect on wildlife. When we went to bed at night in the old miners' huts, we were warned to lock the doors because of the polar bears. That was good because it showed that the wildlife had not been affected by the 3,000 human beings working there. We do not do the ecology of the south Atlantic or the Antarctic any good by getting carried away on party-political green points, which in many cases are bogus. I hope that the House will support the Bill.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) was talking about the wrong pole. It is interesting that he went there not in winter but in summer, and he examined the flora and fauna from the windows of an aeroplane. I am sure that he has good sight and well understood everything going on beneath him.
We are about to pass a Bill—there is a large payroll vote hanging about—that admits that we cannot control multinational capital and its voracious desire to destroy the environment of the Antarctic through mining and exploitation. The heart of the Bill is, quite simply, the contention that, unless we sign the treaty by November, mineral exploitation will begin, with no restrictions or control. That is all the more reason to insist that the treaty meeting in November takes an enormous step forward instead of ratifying the convention and rubbishing the Australians.
The history of the Antarctic is of great interest. There has been ruthless exploitation of seals, whales, fish, penguins and many other creatures during the past 200 years. Other steps away from ruthless exploitation would be through the Antarctic treaty of 1959, ratified in 1961, which declared it a zone of peace, through the United Nations General Assembly motion of 1981 and through successive statements by large numbers of international bodies supporting the concept of a world park.
Is any part of the world to be fair game, at any time, for exploitation—regardless of the scientific information that it could otherwise yield or the necessity for that information—or shall we instead say, "No, we will not destroy our fragile environment. We will not destroy a continent. We shall not allow the multinationals to do so. Rather, the time has come to consider the sustainable rate at which the world's resources can be sensibly exploited."
The history of the past few hundred years shows, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) remarked earlier, that thousands of species have been wiped out. Some have been saved by international action, including certain species of whales—perhaps temporarily, perhaps permanently. However, smaller species of whales, such as the minke, are being destroyed. The lesson we should learn from that is not to rush in and exploit an environment without knowing or understanding the consequences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is an articulate and passionate defender of the world's rain forests. To destroy them is to destroy a major source of oxygen and a major contributor to the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Research into rain forests has also revealed species of plant and animal life of which nothing was known previously, and herbs with medicinal effects that we cannot even begin to think about. Will the same happen in the Antarctic? I do not pretend that plant life will be found there, but it is a fragile place that can be seriously harmed by exploration.
In Committee, the Minister always drew a distinction, which I understand, between exploration and exploitation. However, as I said earlier, there has been a move from scientific research to commercial exploration. I do not believe that any of the companies involved in the Antarctic have any intention other than to return there in the future, armed with a licence and the legislation now before the House, which will allow them to extract the minerals they want. The damage done will be incalculable.
We argued the case against the Bill very strongly on Second Reading, in Committee, and on Report. I hope that the Bill will be defeated tonight, but I observe the payroll vote hanging around and growing very impatient. If the Bill is passed, the scene moves to the treaty meeting in November. The Australian and French Governments now say that they support the environmental park, and the Belgians are apparently about to express the same view. I understand that other Governments are likely to move in the same direction.
Will the Minister return from the November meeting and tell the House, "We couldn't put over our view, so we support the world park now"? Or will the Government heap a barrage of abuse on the Australians—and anyone else who takes the same stance—because they stand up against the multinational mining interests? My hope is that

the Minister will instead propose a Bill to protect the Antarctic as an environmental park, to be used only for genuine scientific experiments and not those leading to exploitation—and will promise that Antarctica's sovereignty will be re-examined.
Some countries claim title to parts of the Antarctic, while others claim title to parts already claimed. And there are no claims at all to other parts. Is there not a classic case for arguing that Antarctica should be handed over to the United Nations so that it will become the property of the entire planet—rather than Britain trying to hand over to multinationals something that is not ours in the first place?
Britain has an important role to play in preserving and protecting the environment, and it should not pass legislation that will, bit by bit, stage by stage, lead to a great deal of environmental destruction. If we are serious about protecting our planet, we should refuse to allow the Bill to pass tonight.

Mr. Home Robertson: It is a sign of the times that the House is as well attended as it is for Third Reading of this important Bill—

Mr. David Lightbown (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Where have you been?

Mr. Home Robertson: I have been in my place listening carefully to the debate on this important piece of legislation since it began. But I do not wish to detain the House for more than a couple of minutes.
The Minister assured the House that the purpose of the Bill is simply to control scientific exploration of the "wilderness continent" of Antarctica. I am afraid that he has been let down on several occasions by two of his Back-Bench colleagues—first the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and then the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed)—who have acknowledged the intention in a number of people's minds that such exploration should move towards commercial exploitation of the continent. Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that that could cause terrible long-term damage to an area that must be protected.
I am particularly concerned because I am acutely aware that one of my constituency's most famous sons—John Muir, who left the little town of Dunbar 100 years ago to settle in the United States of America founded the national park movement in North America. He realised, a century ago, the vital importance of protecting the wilderness areas of that continent. How alarmed he would be now at the suggestion that Antarctica—the last continental wilderness—may be under threat.
I only hope that this and other Governments will acknowledge the importance of the area—even at this late stage—and will take steps to protect it not only against unnecessary and avoidable exploration, but against exploitation, too.

Mr. Eggar: The House is united on the need to protect the environment in Antarctica—the debate has been about how best to achieve that aim. The Government firmly believe that the antarctic minerals convention—with the Bill, which is based on that convention—is the best means of protecting the Antarctic environment. It is the best means because it is the only practical means and because


it ensures, by international agreement, a level of safeguards and controls unparalleled in any legislation on similar activity anywhere else in the world.
On Second Reading and in Committee, I explained that the Bill is the opposite of the miners' charter that some people—particularly Back Benchers—have portrayed it to be. The Bill bans any activities in the pursuit of mineral resources in the Antarctic which might cause more damage than scientific research—and scientific research is already specifically permitted under the Antarctic treaty system. Furthermore, the whole House—and, indeed, the whole country—recognise that it is invaluable to the international community.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), in a brief intervention, raised the question of the appointment of a secretariat. As he knows, we fully appreciate the need for an Antarctic treaty secretariat. We believe that it could do much to assist in the Antarctic generally, and we hope that progress will be made on that critical issue at the Paris meeting in October.
The Bill is the vehicle for Britain's ratification of the convention. We consider it vital that we play our part to bring that convention into force, not just because we believe that it is a remarkable international achievement—as, indeed, it is—and not just because we think that it offers the best chance of preventing possible disastrous exploitation of Antarctic mineral resources, but because unless it is implemented in a timely manner the voluntary moratorium on Antarctic minerals activity will definitely be put at risk. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) recognised that.
A fragile consensus—a consensus with no legally binding force—is all that currently inhibits mineral activity in the Antarctic. That consensus is conditional. If it ever became clear that the convention was unlikely to come into force, it would be only a matter of time before one of the parties decided that the conditions on which it had agreed to the moratorium no longer applied and that the moratorium was no longer valid. We already know that at least one country had engaged in prospecting activity under the guise of scientific research. We simply cannot run that risk.
Without the Bill and the convention, there is a real risk of a mining free-for-all, of heightened tension and possibly conflict, and of the collapse of the Antarctic treaty system which has served so well to keep Antarctica peaceful and stable for more than 30 years.

Mr. Morley: rose—

Mr. Eggar: It has been implied that to suggest that such risks existed is merely scaremongering, but that is not the view of the other Antarctic parties. However slight the risks may appear to Opposition Members, the Government are not prepared consciously and deliberately to incur those risks.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State a certain amount of flexibility and discretion in some areas. The Opposition argue that allowing the Secretary of State such discretion would make him too vulnerable to commercial pressures. I may say that I have more confidence in the impartiality of our Secretary of State than the Opposition, by implication, have in any future Labour incumbent, should there ever be one. That flexibility and discretion are essential for the Secretary of State to respond to different situations, new technology, new environmental concerns,

changing perceptions and new rules and regulations which the commission established under the convention will inevitably devise.
It is not a question of "trust me", as the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) put it. It is essential that further rules applicable to mineral activity be agreed internationally. That is the purpose of the commission. We must be able to ensure that we in the United Kingdom can comply with the commission's new rules.
In Committee there was an attempt to insist on environmental impact assessment procedures drawn from local government legislation, but laws which are appropriate for Aldershot may not necessarily be appropriate for the Antarctic. The commission will have to decide standards and procedures within the strict requirements of the convention. I can assure the House that once the commission has been established, however, the Government will press for suitably tough environmental impact assessment procedures to apply to all prospecting activity. The Secretary of State will then come to the House with regulations to put those procedures into United Kingdom law.
The subject of inspection was discussed at length. I can give the House an assurance that the Government entirely accept the need for rigorous, independent and efficient inspection procedures.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East also stressed the importance of making publicly available all information resulting from prospecting activity. I am happy to tell the House that all information about prospecting activity which would be of environmental significance and without commercial value will be put in the public domain. We shall bring forward regulations to that effect.
I can also assure the House that we shall work within the commission for measures to avoid the duplication of prospecting activity, thus cutting the risk of further impact on the environment. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), as usual, is making sedentary interventions. As he has not been following the procedures in Committee, he is not aware that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) made a specific request and I am commenting on it so as to assure him that we have paid attention to the point that he raised.
The Government care passionately about what happens to the ecology and environment of the Antarctic. At the next Paris meeting of the Antarctic treaty consultative parties in October, we shall be pressing for a range of new protection measures for the Antarctic, such as better safeguards to prevent marine accidents and tighter rules on waste disposal. We want to build up a network of regulations to ensure the safety of the Antarctic. The convention is one element of that network. The other proposals that I have mentioned can operate in parallel, but they cannot be a substitute for the convention—and for the convention to become effective, the Bill must be passed.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 65.

Division No. 303]
[12.25 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Allason, Rupert
Ashby, David


Amos, Alan
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Arbuthnot, James
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony






Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Harris, David


Benyon, W.
Hawkins, Christopher


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hayes, Jerry


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Boswell, Tim
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bottomley, Peter
Hunter, Andrew


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Irvine, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Bowis, John
Key, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Brazier, Julian
Knapman, Roger


Bright, Graham
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Knowles, Michael


Burns, Simon
Latham, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Lawrence, Ivan


Butcher, John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Butterfill, John
Lightbown, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lilley, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Carrington, Matthew
Lord, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Cash, William
Maclean, David


Chapman, Sydney
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Malins, Humfrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mans, Keith


Cope, Rt Hon John
Maples, John


Couchman, James
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Cran, James
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Devlin, Tim
Miller, Sir Hal


Dorrell, Stephen
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mitchell, Sir David


Dover, Den
Monro, Sir Hector


Durant, Tony
Morrison, Sir Charles


Eggar, Tim
Moss, Malcolm


Evennett, David
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Fallon, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Favell, Tony
Neubert, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Fishburn, John Dudley
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Norris, Steve


Franks, Cecil
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Freeman, Roger
Oppenheim, Phillip


French, Douglas
Page, Richard


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


Gill, Christopher
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gow, Ian
Portillo, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Raffan, Keith


Gregory, Conal
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Redwood, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Rhodes James, Robert


Hague, William
Rowe, Andrew


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shaw, David (Dover)





Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waller, Gary


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Speed, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Watts, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wheeler, John


Stern, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Stevens, Lewis
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stokes, Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Sumberg, David
Yeo, Tim


Summerson, Hugo



Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Thurnham, Peter





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Livingstone, Ken


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Livsey, Richard


Beggs, Roy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Beith, A. J.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McFall, John


Buckley, George J.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Callaghan, Jim
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mallon, Seamus


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Meale, Alan


Clay, Bob
Michael, Alun


Clelland, David
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morley, Elliott


Cousins, Jim
Mowlam, Marjorie


Cryer, Bob
Nellist, Dave


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Patchett, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Pike, Peter L.


Dewar, Donald
Primarolo, Dawn


Dixon, Don
Richardson, Jo


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Spearing, Nigel


Gordon, Mildred
Turner, Dennis


Graham, Thomas
Vaz, Keith


Hardy, Peter
Wallace, James


Home Robertson, John
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howells, Geraint
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Illsley, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Ingram, Adam
Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. Frank Haynes.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)



Leadbitter, Ted

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): I beg to move,
That the draft Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to reform the law relating to the investigation and detection of crime, and to revise the law on evidence. In both structure and content, it is closely in line with the provisions already enacted and being successfully operated in England and Wales through the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—or PACE as it is known—which was largely based on recommendations in the report from the Royal Commission on criminal procedure and the criminal law revision committee's 11th report.
In view of the broad affinity of the general criminal law in the two jurisdictions, those recommendations were also valid for Northern Ireland. We are therefore now introducing measures similar to those already adopted in England and Wales.
The detail of the order was covered in the explanatory document published together with the draft order last July, and a period of consultation followed. Therefore, I shall describe the content of the order only in general terms and simply highlight some of its more important provisions and draw attention to changes that have been made since the proposal was first published.
The powers currently available for stop and search are fragmented and inappropriate to meet the demands of modern policing. Accordingly, article 3 introduces new powers which will allow the police to stop and search persons and vehicles on reasonable suspicion for stolen goods, offensive weapons, and other dangerous articles. Those powers are accompanied by a range of safeguards to ensure that they are used fairly and responsibly, and with due regard to the rights of individuals who come into contact with the police.
Part III of the order deals with powers and procedures under which the police may enter and search premises and seize and retain property. The basic procedure is set out in article 10 under which the police may apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant to search for material which is relevant evidence of an offence. However, the police will not be able to use that procedure for certain categories of material held in confidence, which are to be given special protection. In those circumstances, the police must apply to a county court judge.
Those procedures are fully in line with those that apply under PACE, except that for Northern Ireland there is an additional ground on which the police may base an application for a search warrant rather than a production order and that is to protect, for example, sources of sensitive information in cases of serious fraud. Of course, that does not mean that the police will always obtain a warrant, because the decision whether one is granted will remain entirely a matter for the courts.
Part IV of the order again follows PACE by restructuring and clarifying the law on arrest. The most important change is that the more serious common law

offences such as kidnapping, false imprisonment and conspiracy to defraud will now become arrestable offences as they are already in England and Wales.
Having outlined the new police powers that the order will introduce, I should now like to describe the arrangements set out in parts V and VI of the order which will regulate the detention and safeguard the rights of suspects in custody. The basis of the new system for the detention of suspects has three important elements. First, a number of police stations which can provide adequate interview and cellular accommodation for suspects must be designated by the chief constable. Secondly, at each designated station a custody officer must be appointed who will have independent responsibility for the welfare of suspects and the protection of their rights. Thirdly, the police will be required to take any suspect to one of the designated stations if he is likely to be detained in their custody for longer than six hours. This means that the suspect will come under the immediate protection of the custody officer and will have an opportunity to exercise the rights available to persons detained by the police.
The system itself operates on the necessity principle. In other words, the need for a suspect's detention must be independently reviewed at regular intervals by a senior police officer who at each stage must be satisfied that the grounds for detention continue to apply. In serious cases and where the suspect is detained without charge. he may be detained for 36 hours only on the authorisation of the police. If further detention is necessary, it must be authorised by a magistrates court at which the suspect will be entitled to legal representation. No one may be held in police custody on any authorisation for longer than 96 hours.
By placing a considerable responsibility on the police and on the courts to ensure that no one is detained for longer than is absolutely necessary, the new arrangements will provide a much more effective means of regulating the detention of suspects and of securing their rights. Part VI of the order deals with the questioning and treatment of persons in custody and gives a suspect rights to have someone informed of his arrest and to consult a solicitor privately. Any delay with regard to these matters must be authorised by a senior police officer, and even then for a period not exceeding 36 hours and only in cases involving a serious arrestable offence.
Article 60 provides for the tape recording of interviews with suspects. Trials will soon be carried out in Northern Ireland, and when they have been evaluated, the arrangements will be brought into operation as soon as practicable. Articles 62 and 63 incorporate the existing provisions from the Criminal Justice Act 1988 under which the police in Northern Ireland can take body samples. The main difference between these provisions and those which apply in England and Wales is that for Northern Ireland a swab taken from a suspect's mouth has been defined as a non-intimate sample and, accordingly, may be taken without consent. These powers have been available to the police for almost a year and the courts in Northern Ireland have found DNA evidence of value in cases already brought to trial.
Part VIII of the order provides for the issue of codes of practice, drafts of which I hope to publish shortly. These codes will complement the order by providing detailed rules and guidance to the police on the exercise of their powers, and will supplement the statutory safeguards both to the public and to suspects in custody.
Parts VIII and IX of the order deal with evidence. This is an extremely technical area of the law, but the overall purpose is simple. It is to clarify the nature of what may be admitted as evidence in court and to ensure the fairness of proceedings. The courts will be required to exclude any confession obtained by oppression or under circumstances that would adversely affect its reliability. It may also exclude evidence that would adversely affect the fairness of proceedings.
Article 81, relating to evidence through live television links, has been amended to cover initially only child witnesses and those in fear within Northern Ireland, but we have included powers to allow for extension in due course of live television evidence to such witnesses from Great Britain and outside the United Kingdom.
In part X, article 82 places a responsibility on the police authority, in consultation with the chief constable, to make appropriate arrangements for obtaining the views of the community on policing. This is particularly important in Northern Ireland, where it is vital to promote a wider understanding of the role of the police and to assist the police in appreciating the needs of the community. In order to enable their efforts to succeed, I hope that all responsible public representatives in Northern Ireland will give their support to this process.
Finally, I should point out that article 86 was added following publication of the proposal in order to enable a system of ordinary postal service of summons to be introduced for cases before magistrates courts in Northern Ireland, as already happens in England and Wales.
This wide-ranging order represents a considerable step forward in our efforts to tackle serious crime. Members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary do a most impressive job in difficult conditions, for which they deserve our respect and gratitude. These new powers will enable them to enforce the law more effectively, to bring offenders to justice and to protect the community that they serve. But with new powers comes added responsibility, and it will be important for the police to use their new powers properly and only as and when necessary. The most important factor in effective policing is the relationship between the police and the community. If the public can be assured that the police will act responsibly and impartially in the exercise of their powers, that will enhance the ability of the police to protect the whole community, to understand its needs and to uphold the rule of law.
I believe that the order strikes a fair and proper balance between police powers and the rights of the individual, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I apologise to the Minister and to the House for not being in the Chamber for the first minute of the Minister's dissertation.
The order has been largely inspired by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but there are significant differences between the order and the Act, both in the content and in the manner in which the order has been introduced. Whatever one thinks of the merits of the 1984 Act, it was preceded by a long investigation, by a royal commission, and it responded to a clear need. In Northern

Ireland there has been some concern that the order has not been shown to be necessary, and from what the Minister has said tonight, that appears to be the case.
The case for new legislation has not been adequately made. It is merely assumed that because similar legislation has been adopted in Great Britain it must also be necessary in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland statutory provisions should take into account local conditions, and not simply be copies of legislation which may be inappropriate or unnecessary in the particular context of Northern Ireland. That principle is implicit both in the specific institutional arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland and in the legislative procedures through which Northern Ireland legislation is adopted.
When one compares the situation in Northern Ireland with that on the mainland, two major differences are immediately apparent. On the one hand, Northern Ireland has not experienced the substantial increase in crime over which the Conservative Government have presided elsewhere, and neither has the problem of the declining effectiveness of the police force become apparent. In the statistics published in the RUC Chief Constable's reports, the figures for indictable offences reported since 1981 do not show a strong thrusting upward trend, but fluctuations around a weak upward trend. By contrast, a strong upward trend is apparent in the detection rate, and that must be welcomed.
The Government have argued in the past that one cannot take a statistical approach to the problem. That may be so, but it is equally unwise to assume that the strengthening of police powers automatically leads to an improvement in crime statistics. The success of a police force depends, among other factors, on the degree of public confidence in it. Given the political situation in Northern Ireland, the Royal Ulster Constabulary enjoys remarkable success in dealing with non-paramilitary crime. We should acknowledge and understand that and be careful not misguidedly to make the job of the police more difficult by giving them excessive powers which might reduce public confidence. I believe that greater effort is needed to justify the Government's legislation.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: If I have followed the hon. Gentleman's line of thought correctly, he seems to be under the impression that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in the United Kingdom is somehow boosting the police powers and restricting the powers of the individual citizen accused. In practice, that is the very opposite of what is happening in Britain, where the Act is proving to be a substantial protection for the individual person accused. In those circumstances, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the new measure for Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. and learned Gentleman did not listen to what I said. I said that the Government had not made out the case for the order in Northern Ireland because the crime figures and the conviction success of the RUC, particularly on non-paramilitary crime, did not merit the powers given in other parts of the United Kingdom. The RUC is far more successful than other United Kingdom police forces. In any society one must be jealous of extending the powers of the police unless the case to do so is adequately made.
Many people in Northern Ireland will conclude that the Government made up their mind to pursue this course


whether or not there was evidence to warrant it. Those of us who took part in the consultation phase will certainly have our suspicions as the order before us now is virtually identical to the draft presented more than a year ago. I commend the RUC and the police authority for setting out to establish the type of consultative system for community policy that was suggested by the Labour party. That system goes significantly further than the minimalist position set out in article 82 of the order.
In the recently published review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement there is a commitment in paragraph 9 to look at the harmonisation of criminal law in the two parts of Ireland. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House to what extent the order has been framed with that objective in mind.
We are concerned about the order and we shall look carefully at the way in which it is operated. We are particularly concerned about the differences between the order and the corresponding Act for England and Wales. Those differences are to be found, inter alia, in the procedures for DNA profiling, in the use of television links for witnesses and in access to special procedure material. The order perpetuates a substantial difference between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in respect of DNA profiling, which was introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The provisions for obtaining DNA samples in articles 53, 63 and 64 represent a somewhat disturbing departure from practice under PACE. Although we welcome technological developments in the fight against crime, confidence in the criminal justice system requires that such new technology should, initially, be viewed critically in order to enjoy eventual public credibility.
We are therefore concerned that mouth samples should be defined as non-intimate and therefore obtainable without consent. Several questions arise from this. There are serious questions about what constitutes an effective and useful mouth sample. If this is simply a question of taking a swab from between the lip and lower gum, as the former Minister of State suggested in the House in 1988, it is clear that the scientific community is divided over the validity of the claim that such a useful sample can be taken. If a scientific controversy exists, it would be over-optimistic to expect the general public to endorse the use of such methods.
In the continuing correspondence that I have had with the Secretary of State, he has made several claims that the Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory has been able to provide DNA profiles from mouth swabs. If that is the case, I hope that we shall see the early publication of those findings in a reputable scientific journal. The danger is that, without peer examination, DNA testing could fall into disrepute, depriving the RUC of a valuable instrument of detection.
The alternative scientific opinion is that, for a mouth sample to provide sufficient material for DNA profiling, it must take the form of scraping the inside of the mouth with a blunt instrument and not, as has been suggested by the former Minister of State, merely by a swab between the lip and the gum. Such a procedure would be extremely difficult to carry out in the absence of consent. Again the methods could fall into public disrepute. At the same time, police officers could find themselves at risk physically and at risk of being the objects of legal action for compensation as a result of injuries that would almost inevitably result from forcibly taking a swab by such means. I know that

the standing advisory commission on human rights expressed similar anxieties about this problem in its 14th report.
A further element of worry concerns the destruction of samples and records of those who are not convicted. Article 64 compels the destruction of samples and fingerprints after the person to whom they relate has been cleared or has had proceedings against him dropped. That is unnecessary with DNA samples, as the testing process effectively destroys the samples as a matter of course, but this provision is seriously weakened by the fact that the information gained by such methods does not have to be destroyed. Information on people who have not been convicted in any court may be held on file as though they were convicted criminals. Such a procedure is unjust, and the standing advisory commission recommends that a statutory duty to destroy such records should be included in the order. We supported that view and regret that it contains no such provision.
When this matter was discussed in the other place, the Minister said, when questioned:
I want to give … an assurance that our practice will be to destroy both samples and DNA profiles … We should prefer to keep the legislative provisions in line with those applicable to the rest of the United Kingdom"—
but not, of course, in the case of intimate mouth swabs—
and to achieve the objective by administrative means."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 July 1989; Vol 499, c. 1659–60.]
What administrative means have been taken to ensure that such profiles have been destroyed when a person has not been convicted in any court? What regulations apply to the keeping of profiles while awaiting an action in court? Will the regulations appear in the code which is shortly to be published?
Another worrying difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom in the order is the use of live television links for witnesses. We recognise that there are circumstances in which the use of such facilities is desirable, particularly for children under the age of 14—there have been some horrendous cases recently in which it has been necessary to protect the child from having to relive recent experiences under the eyes of the perpetrators of foul crimes—but we are deeply suspicious of the other provisions in the order. The inclusion of another ground for giving evidence by television is designed to allow witnesses, who would otherwise not do so because of fear, to present their testimony in court. I believe that that is a dangerous extension of the use of television. It seems blatantly obvious that Northern Ireland is being used as a testing ground for this innovation. Whatever the merits of such a development, if such exist, the use of Northern Ireland for legal experimentation of this kind is offensive to many people in the Province.
I do not believe that this extension of televising witnesses is a positive innovation. So long as the adversarial system of justice prevails, witnesses have to be subject to effective examination and cross-examination. Witness demeanour under questioning has long been recognised as a vital part of the evidence, as many judicial summings-up have made clear. A television performance cannot provide the authenticity of the court room—no studio link can equal the ordeal of the witness box.
There is also a serious problem of logic in the Government's case. If the witness is intimidated by spectators or by the defendant, the presiding judge has the


right to clear the court. Overtly threatening behaviour in court is also likely to constitute a criminal offence in its own right, as well as being contempt of court. It is accepted by all, I think, that potential witnesses have been intimidated in the past, especially by paramilitary organisations. The problem, however, is one of guaranteeing the security of the witness before and after the trial. It is difficult to see how the use of television can overcome this problem.
It is also to be noted that article 81 differs from the article in the original proposal in so far as it gives a power to the Secretary of State to enable this latter category of witness to make use of television links. It is not clear whether the article is designed to allow the Secretary of State to intervene in individual cases and in individual trials, as he did on the right to silence in the Winchester case, or whether it is a general rule-making power. In either case, it is unacceptable. If such matters are to be introduced, they should be left to be decided by the courts.
The power being given to the Secretary of State is astounding. It seems—unless the Minister corrects this when he winds up—that the Secretary of State
may by order (a) direct that this Article shall apply—(i) to a witness falling within head (i) or (ii) of paragraph 1(b) who is in Great Britain or (ii) to any witness who is outside the United Kingdom".
That gives enormous scope. Does it mean outside the whole area in which the Queen's writ runs? What sort of protection will there be, for example for a defendent and defendant's counsel, to enable them to know the nature of the proceedings by which a witness is being examined by television? How can we be certain that in some far distant land, a witness will not be rehearsed by someone, out of the range of camera, in the sort of answers to be given to the questions being put to him or her? This is a serious and dangerous extension. I am surprised that members of the legal profession have not expressed more concern about it, but the House at least should examine it carefully.
In other matters the police can show that serving notice of their intention to seek a production order would seriously prejudice an investigation. In England, they have the alternative of applying to a court for a search warrant. In England and Wales, the search warrant applies only to the investigation in hand, but in Northern Ireland, there is another dangerous extension. We are being asked to extend the scope of this power so that it covers other investigations. As that would potentially cover investigations that have not even commenced, it seems an all-embracing power, better suited to a repressive than to a reforming Government.
We have still not had a convincing response from the Government about why this great extension of the police power of discovery of documents should be necessary in Northern Ireland, but not in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Finally, the codes of practice promised by the draft order must be dealt with. It is obvious that the key to the implementation of the order lies in the codes of practice. So I am disappointed that, apart from the one dealing with the taking of samples, they have not yet been published in so far as they are to apply to Northern Ireland. Given that the order is not a simple copy of the 1984 Act, one cannot assume that the respective codes of practice will be the same.
The codes of practice, whatever their as yet unknown contents, are somewhat undermined by the reliance on the RUC as their sole enforcer, since violations will be disciplinary matters dealt with by the chief constable, or by those acting for him. Although I do not doubt the determination of the RUC to police itself effectively, enforcement of the codes must not only be rigorous, but must be seen to be so.
The damage done to confidence in the RUC by the Stalker affair remains to remind us strongly and harshly of this principle. Given the status of the RUC, people whose rights are violated under the terms of the codes have no personal redress. Although RUC officers may be punished, the victim cannot directly obtain redress for a mere breach of the codes. Therefore, although the codes may be effective managerial instruments within the force, the citizen does not see them in that light.
It is not enough to say that the code of practice may be used as evidence in civil actions. They should also be statutory. This would help to overcome one of the major problems that has been apparent in the operation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which deals with England and Wales. There has been widespread criticism that the sections of the legislation relating to the rights of suspects has not been sufficiently respected and that the judicial interpretation of the Act as to the status of the code has somewhat watered down the safeguards. By giving statutory effect to the codes of practice, the Government would give a clear sign that the extension of the powers of the police is to be paralleled by the protection of the rights of the citizen—rights that were laid down in the Act.
In this respect, there is another difference between Northern Ireland and England and Wales. In England and Wales, suspects arrested under emergency legislation are covered by the codes of practice. In Northern Ireland, that will not be the case. In cases of serious terrorism and crime in Great Britain, interviews will be recorded, and the defence will have access to the tape recordings. In Northern Ireland this will not be the case. With even a minor infringement of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act in the Province, tape recordings will not be available to the defence, while in a major drugs case, in which there might be just as much horror and wealth, with as many frightening matters, the tape recording will be accessible to the defence. That is a serious deficiency.
The Government's reason for this is that it might be possible for someone to gain access to the tape recording and tease out of it some information that might be of value to the terrorist. I understand that, but if terrorists are as skilful and well trained as we are told they are, in their own de-briefing by their associates, whether it takes place before or after conviction, the evidence of where that information to the security forces came from will be as evident to them as it would be in a tape recording. Even if that were not the case, it should have been possible for the Government to find some method by which application could be made to the courts for deletion of the parts of the recording that have specific signs of the source of the intelligence that led to the arrest and questioning. That is a fundamental weakness in the way in which serious terrorist crime is tackled in Northern Ireland.
What status will the codes of practice have in the operation of the independent police complaints commission for Northern Ireland? Will the commission be able


to use the codes of practice as a measure to determine whether a complaint is justified? Is it to be the mean or will they he able to go beyond it in carrying out their duties?
The position of the individual police officer must also be considered. What safeguards will be enshrined in statutory provisions to ensure that police officers are themselves fairly treated under the terms of the codes? Given the fact that the RUC, like many large organisations, has not been free of industrial relations difficulties, the need to ensure a commitment to the codes on the part of each officer also requires that safeguards be introduced for the officers themselves. For both the sake of the individual police officer and for public confidence in the police, it is essential that complaints are dealt with openly, effectively and rapidly.
In terms of safeguards for both suspects and police officers, I welcome the introduction of the provision requiring the tape-recording of interviews, as far as it goes. However, we have already pointed out some of the difficulties that may arise in that case. The visual recording of interviews is not included; nor are suspects arrested under the emergency legislation. We know that closed-circuit television already exists in interrogation centres, but that system has its failings. There is only a monitoring, not a recording, of what goes on. There are inevitably times when the screens will not be monitored, and that is what may have happened in the disturbing Gillen case. It is important, therefore, to have an adequate video recording of what takes place. That is not an expensive measure, but I believe that it will present the Government with a great opportunity to remove all the credibility from periodic complaints about the ill-treatment of suspects in custody. The complaints are sometimes founded on fact, but often they are not, and they are often used by the paramilitary forces to discredit the police and their work.
The Minister will be aware that there is a continuing and wide-ranging debate in Northern Ireland on human rights, and it is one that I welcome. One of the positive aspects of the order is that it provides for statutory rights where none previously existed, and we welcome that. I am sure that the Minister will agree, however, that we should be giving more attention to providing statutory protection for human rights in Northern Ireland. We shall not have time to go into that debate tonight, but I am sure that it is one to which hon. Members will wish to return again and again in the near future.

Mr. Ian Gow: There is agreement between my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about one matter, and that is the importance of the order.
I begin my remarks by reminding the House of an astonishing paradox. Not one Member of this place representing a constituency in Great Britain would have tolerated for one moment a measure of this importance, comprising 90 articles and seven schedules, being passed into law with only one and a half hours of debate in the House and one and a half hours in another place.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, made some fair comments about the order, and it would have been right in normal circumstances for his reservations to be tested by the tabling of amendments to proposed

legislation. The Minister would have had the opportunity to reply to the speeches of Opposition Members and of his hon. Friends. I protest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about legislation in this form for one part of the United Kingdom which none of us would accept for our own constituents if it applied to them.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessor have agreed in the House on many occasions that they do not like legislation in this form. They agree with the criticism of it, yet nothing is done. We go on year after year denying to the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland and to Members of this place the normal legislative procedures that we accept without reservation when they apply to Great Britain.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State was correct when he said that the largest part of the order is based upon the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I welcomed that Act, as did almost all my right hon. and hon. Friends. Although the Act has been operative for only a short time, I believe that the central principle enshrined in it has been beneficial in England and Wales. The provisions in that Act have proved sensible in giving additional powers to the police and in giving additional protection to the innocent. Why has there been a delay in introducing this legislation to that part of the United Kingdom known as Northern Ireland?
I find myself in respectful disagreement with the shadow Secretary of State. It is one of those astonishing paradoxes that, if we leave aside the evil of terrorism, on the basis of non-terrorist crime Northern Ireland is the most law-abiding part of the United Kingdom. It might be said that, therefore, that the case for legislation for Northern Ireland similar to that for England and Wales is not so strong because it is more law-abiding. I advance that argument only to dismiss it. Although the levels of non-terrorist crime in Northern Ireland are lower than in any other part of the kingdom, even there crime is still a serious problem. The provisions in the order will assist the police and will protect the innocent citizens in Northern Ireland.
I warmly approve of the contents of the order and congratulate my right hon. Friend on his speech. I hope, however, that he will take seriously the criticism about this means of legislating.

Mr. William Ross: I listened with considerable interest when the Opposition spokesman the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North ( Mr. McNamara) put a case for leaving the law in Northern Ireland as it stands, on the basis that, apart from terrorism, we are a law-abiding society. To follow that case to its logical conclusion would mean dividing the United Kingdom into blocs—those that were law—abiding and those that were not—with different laws for different places. That is the practice in Northern Ireland, but it cannot be defended, because, so far as is possible, the law should be the same throughout the United Kingdom.
As has already been pointed out, the order covers some 90 pages, so it might appear to any disinterested and impartial observer that this important matter is being dealt with in a rather cavalier fashion. International crime is increasing and there are particular problems with crimes such as serious fraud. The appearance of a certain person in court in Northern Ireland earlier this year arising out of


the De Lorean affair should convince anyone that there needs to be an updating of the law, especially in respect of serious fraud.
There is a gap that needs to be filled, and insofar as the order strengthens the law it should be welcomed by every law-abiding citizen. There is a necessity periodically to reform and update the law in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom. It cannot be left for ever as it stands. We have only to look at the list of repeals to realise that many go back more than 100 years. It is therefore appropriate that we should consider these matters rather more frequently.
There are various differences in the law. One is in respect of the powers of entry, search and seizure and the additional protection given to the source of information. That is one of the parts of the order where there is a different attitude even to what we describe as ordinary crime in Northern Ireland. Terrorism has permeated that society to such an extent that there are certain dangers which are not evident to the same extent on this side of the Irish sea. Sources of information, for example, are particularly vulnerable if identified, and must be protected. I personally welcome the extra protection that the order provides.
A problem arises in respect of the timescale for implementing such changes. The Minister said that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act became law in 1984, whereas the provisions before the House will not take effect until next year—six years after the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That is six years too long. Every sensible, law-abiding citizen, and every right hon. and hon. Member, wants to see the guilty persecuted or prosecuted—personally, I do not mind which, though I think that they should be clobbered. But the guilty have been getting away with it for six years, which is unacceptable in any society.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 could easily have included Northern Ireland, and it should have done so—especially if there are to be other differences between Northern Ireland and British Law. How much wiser and better informed right hon. and hon. Members would be if points of relevance to Northern Ireland had been argued in Committee and on the Floor of the House during the passage of that legislation. That Bill offered a golden opportunity to increase understanding among right hon. and hon. Members of conditions in the Province, but it was deliberately passed up by the present Administration for reasons of their own.
If the order is to be effective and to have beneficial consequences, it is essential to ensure sufficient manpower. I understand that the police have one or two reservations about that aspect. One assumes that there will be a need for a custody sergeant in every police station, who will perform a very important function. I am curious to know whether the number of sergeants in the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be increased by 60 for that purpose, or whether the duties of custody sergeant will be lumped together with the responsibilities of existing station sergeants. We should like a categorical assurance that any increase in manpower will be funded by central Government. There may also be downstream conse

quences in respect of the constables on duty at stations where suspects are held. That aspect, too, should be clarified.
There may be difficulties in relation to officers holding the rank of inspector and above. They are deeply involved in the preparation of cases, all the way down the line. They will need additional training and to be fully informed of the consequences of the order. Time and money will have to be spent on the re-education and retraining of senior officers, but no extra manpower or money has been made available for that purpose.
Paragraph 7 on page 4 of the "Explanatory Document" points out
it is important that the resources and training of the police are sufficient".
Will that apparent commitment be fulfilled?
As to television evidence, this is one of those rare occasions when I find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. I cannot understand how an individual can be cross-examined at the far end of a television camera in the Irish Republic, Canada, Australia, or France. I should like an explanation of how that arrangement will work in practice. This is another apparent instance of a spillover of terrorist involvement. Will the individual appear on a television screen in court, to be identified by the evil, wicked people against whom he is giving evidence, or by their friends? If so, he will immediately be in mortal danger, and the fact that he is only an image on a television screen will not help him.
I do not share the misgivings expressed about the collection of DNA material. Innocent people will have nothing to fear from providing that which will clear them, and the material will be sought only when the police have material with which it can be compared.
I am sorry that we have such a short time in which to discuss the matter, for much more needs to be said—and can be said. Finally, can the Minister tell us how the public views on policing will be obtained? I have thought about that already—would it not have to be through the various police liaison committees that already exist?

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I am very much aware that other hon. Members wish to participate. Suffice it to say that I share the view that legislation such as this is rushed through in such a way that hon. Members must abandon the substantive elements of what they wished to say and proceed to the broader points.
Some hon. Members have asked why the legislation should apply in the north of Ireland: was there not a case for a rather different approach? The Government's explanatory document gives the reasons, and I think that they are worth examining. The document states:
The protection and safeguarding of suspects' rights under all circumstances is particularly important in Northern Ireland, where allegations have been made in the past…Accordingly…it would be of considerable benefit to both the police and the public if arrangemens governing the questioning and treatment of persons in custody were more clearly defined and placed on a statutory footing.
I welcome the reference to a statutory footing, which we never see again in the legislation. I also welcome the information that it is to apply to all suspects' rights—which is immediately contradicted, not only in the legislation but in the explanatory document. Before we even open the order, we see the inherent contradiction


based on a statement made in the Government's own explanatory note. That is typical of their position on the issue.
One paragraph in the document is headed "Parity with England and Wales".
It tells us why the Government want such parity:
The Government firmly believes that everyone in the United Kingdom should be equally protected under the law".
Giving five instances, it tells us why, and shows us how, those in the North of Ireland will not be protected on equal terms under the law to people in England and Wales.
The Government cannot be allowed to have it both ways. Either there are special circumstances in the north of Ireland requiring a special type of legislation in relation even to the criminal law, or there are no such circumstances and there should be full parity. That is the dilemma in which the legislation puts us—and the rather silly position in which the explanatory document, on close reading, puts the Government. It is no position on which to base a criminal law that will be with us for a long time.
The most fundamental weakness is this: where the protection of the codes of conduct is most needed—in relation to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984—it simply does not apply. Yet we are told:
the protection and safeguarding of suspects' rights under all circumstances
is particularly important.
On DNA testing, we are told that we are to have parity with England and Wales. I make no virtue of parity because I am not making a case for it, but when a Government state that all people in the United Kingdom must be treated equally and that parity is sought, it should apply and there should be no contradictions in succeeding sections.
One could ask what makes ordinary crime in Northern Ireland so different from ordinary crime in England, Scotland and Wales that we must have four or five substantial differences in the same piece of legislation. What is the difference between a person who robs a shop in Northern Ireland and a person who robs a shop in Birmingham? I believe that there is no difference. Those anomalies and contradictions show that we are running into danger. We had hoped that the ordinary criminal law that applies to people who are not involved in terrorism would blur the edges of the harsh, repressive legislation in the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Emergency Provisions Act. Unfortunately, it has gone the other way.
There is almost a hidden curriculum in the Police and Criminal Evidence Order. Rather than softening the edges of the emergency legislation, the emergency legislation is encroaching on the ordinary criminal law. In this piece of legislation, as in many others, bets are hedged because of the parallels between the criminal law and the emergency legislation. That is dangerous to confidence in the law. One could ask why are there differences in the application of DNA testing. Why are there differences in the law relating to the seizure of materials under the Prevention of Terrorism Act? If a person is held under that legislation here, he has the protection of the codes of conduct, but if he is 20 miles away across a piece of water he does not have that protection. Surely that is not parity, sense or justice. We have to examine the hidden curriculum as well as the detailed elements within the legislation.
I am aware that others are waiting to speak, so I shall dispense with many of the points that I would have made had we been dealing with normal legislation. We must be careful that the leakage between the two sections of law is monitored very closely. It is not bringing us back to normal; it is removing the normalisation of the ordinary criminal law. That inexorable movement towards emergency law becoming part of the criminal law must worry anyone who studies the legislation.
Finally, I must mention a point made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). How does one instigate and implement statutory consultation with something or someone called "people"? That is stated in the explanatory document and in the legislation. I wait with great interest to be told how one can have statutory consultation with people. They are not defined as those who are elected or those who carry out a certain function, but are simply people. Such a woolly, imprecise definition has caught the eye of people in the north of Ireland because they have seen for a long time that what the Government mean by "people" are those who happen to agree with them on any specific issue at any moment.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Like one or two other hon. Members here tonight, I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. My feeling tonight is more than merely a rather uncomfortable one of deja vu. I agree very much with what was said by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I remind him of the additional point that the Standing Committee had 59 sittings—the record number, I believe, held by any Standing Committee for any Bill passed by the House—quite apart from the discussions that took place on the Floor of the House. No hon. Member for Northern Ireland was a member of that Committee and Northern Ireland issues were not discussed in any detail. It is astonishing that in the middle of the night we should be having a debate as short as one and a half hours to deal with matters of such substance.
Having watched the progress of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 over the past five years, I welcome the introduction of at least some of its provisions into Northern Ireland. Although judicial application of the code on the detention, treatment and questioning of prisoners has been inconsistent, by and large it has been of benefit to the innocent and can rarely be said to have helped the guilty to escape conviction. That is a beneficial advance.
However, I agree with hon. Members from Northern Ireland that there is no sound basis for distinguishing between people who are being detained and questioned under the emergency provisions and those detained and questioned for ordinary crimes. They are all entitled to the same treatment. We do not set out to apply different standards to the way in which they are asked questions by the police.
I want to deal with two specific issues, both of which were mentioned in some detail earlier in the debate. The first relates to mouth swabs. I ask the Minister a simple question. Why is the mouth an intimate orifice in Liverpool, but not in Belfast? Why is the same person not subjected to the forcible removal of a sample from his mouth in Liverpool, but is subjected to it in Belfast? It is completely illogical. If the Government's real wish, as it


appears to be, is to legislate to permit the taking of intimate samples by force, they should say so and allow the matter to be debated honestly.
Clearly, the Government have decided to allow in Northern Ireland only the taking of an intimate sample by force. I would go further and ask the Minister whether the Government have considered the effect of article 3 of the European convention on human rights in this context. Is it not the case that the United Kingdom Government run a severe risk of forcible searches of an intimate orifice, such as the mouth, being regarded as degrading treatment by the European Court of Human Rights and, therefore, contrary to article 3? I hope that the Minister will tell the House that that point has been considered and what advice he has received.
Why do the Government feel that they need a provision to allow the forcible taking of oral swabs, as proposed in the order, at all? Do they not think that article 62(10) is sufficient? If a person is asked to give an intimate sample, as defined by the order and under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and refuses, the court can draw an inference of guilt from that very refusal. That is something that we have been practising in the courts of England and Wales since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 received the Royal Assent and came into effect. Why is it not good enough simply to have the same provision in Northern Ireland?
The forcible taking of oral swabs is a hostage to fortune. It will be difficult for the police to operate. There will be accusations of unnecessary violence in the taking of samples and police officers will be injured in taking those samples while, in evidential terms, the Government will probably gain next to nothing.
My second detailed point relates to video links, a matter that has already been discussed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). There is a substantial difference between the permissible video-link evidence in England and Wales, and what is proposed in this order. In England and Wales the video link can be used only for the evidence of children under 14 in certain specified cases and—although I have not heard of a case in which it has been used as yet—in certain circumstances if a witness is outside the jurisdiction.
What seems to be envisaged now for Northern Ireland is that any witness who feels afraid may give his or her evidence by video link. But what is the test of fear to be? It is not even phrased as "well-founded fear". It seems an entirely subjective test. Judges will be entitled to allow evidence to be given by video even if a witness has genuine but ill-founded fear.
The immediacy of the court room is important. It is helpful to judges and to juries, where there is a jury, to see the witness's demeanour and reaction to questioning—the way in which the witness deals with the questions, and the pauses before an answer is given—but it simply will not be possible to have that immediacy if video links are used widely. Of course they are justified for children because of other emotional considerations, but it is important that we resist them where they are not necessary. We must remember that adult witnesses may be giving evidence of the minutiae of a case. It is difficult to deal with plans,

documents, computer data and so on when one is asking questions via a television camera of someone who may be remote.
In addition, I suspect that the use of video links, as envisaged in the order, would encourage the self-interested so-called "accomplice" or "supergrass", who may feel that he can gain personal advantage by giving false evidence and who will feel secure in doing so if the residual provisions of the order are brought into effect and he can give that evidence using a changed identity from a television studio in some distant part of the world. These provisions will not necessarily mean that the evidence will be more reliable. Indeed, there may be a significant temptation for the witness to give even less reliable evidence, but to seem more credible.
In the practicable circumstances of a court, it is not always as easy as some imagine to detect, even of a witness who is actually standing in the court, whether he is telling the truth or he is telling lies. It will be very much more difficult to detect the lies of someone who is merely a face on a television monitor, giving evidence in the comfort and security of a studio many miles away.
Therefore, although I welcome the introduction of many of the protections—I agree with what was said earlier by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in an intervention—I invite the Government to look closely at the two issues that I have raised. They may be the issues that will give rise to the controversies and the litigation by which this order will be judged.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Several specific points have been made in this debate. In view of the time, I shall not repeat them, but it is important to emphasise the underlying assumptions on which they were based. They were based on the need to balance giving the police necessary powers and protecting civil liberties—a balance that was referred to by many hon. Members this evening.
The Minister emphasised that the new powers must be used impartially and responsibly to protect civil liberties. In relation to Northern Ireland, that dimension is very important, particularly as concerns have been voiced about the operation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in England and Wales, in that in some senses it favours the police. That would be a specific problem in Northern Ireland because it is very important to keep the balance between the police and the public to ensure that they work closely together. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) stressed that, as PACE affects Northern Ireland, it is non-emergency legislation and is general criminal law. It is therefore very important that the balance between police powers and civil liberties is seen to be kept.
In that context, I wish to concentrate on a point that has not been emphasised so far. One of the important features of PACE is that it guarantees a suspect's right of access to legal advice. The Minister has already outlined the circumstances in which there would be a delay in access to a lawyer. He referred also to the nature of the limited range of serious arrestable offences when access would be allowed only on the authority of a superintendent. The guarantee of a suspect's right of access to legal advice is clearly a great improvement on the pre-PACE legislation,


and we welcome that. An important point in relation to PACE as it affects Northern Ireland is that the guarantee of legal advice is only of value if it is implemented.
The guarantee of legal advice in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was implemented through the setting up of 24-hour duty solicitor schemes under which anyone suspected, arrested and taken to a police station could obtain advice from the police duty solicitor. The important point about PACE in England and Wales is that part of the 1984 Act required—and "required" is an important word—the Law Society to establish police duty solicitor schemes.
Section 54 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 affecting England and Wales sets up legal advice, and another section establishes legal aid for persons at police stations. The Northern Ireland PACE establishes access to legal advice in section 59. It would be useful if the Minister could explain why legal aid for persons at police stations is missing from PACE Northern Ireland. Without that provision, we face the problem that the principle of legal advice is in the legislation but no mechanism with which to achieve it. Perhaps the Minister can explain in relation to that crucial and fundamental aspect of PACE how we can have the principle on the face of the legislation, but have no mechanism to achieve it.
Clearly there are difficulties in Northern Ireland and I do not want to under-estimate them. There are problems with the Law Society in Northern Ireland because it is not organised on a regional basis, as it is on the mainland. Smaller local associations would make it difficult to liaise. The demographic and geographic factors militate against a statutory scheme. However, there must be some kind of scheme or people may be entitled to legal advice but unable to get it.
I understand that there are only two experimental schemes working in that respect at present—one in Belfast and the other in Craigavon; no doubt, hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong. There is no basis for a statutory scheme to operate on. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us what stage consultations on a statutory scheme have reached. It would be useful if he could clarify at the same time whether the statutory scheme would apply to people who go voluntarily to a police station as well as to those who have been arrested.
I agreed with the comments made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) about the need to clarify the definition of a designated centre. I understand that the RUC has not yet decided which police stations should be designated. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East suggested that every police station would be a designated station. That is not made clear in the explanation to the order. It would be useful to know that.
Solicitors in Northern Ireland may resist a duty solicitor scheme on the grounds that they have spent years building up a client base in a difficult environment and are not prepared to share it with a duty solicitor. It is crucial for the Minister to clarify that or there may be no chance to plan and inform people of the changes necessary to make the fundamental principle of PACE work.
Since PACE was introduced in England and Wales, it has increased threefold the demand for legal advice services. I hope that the Minister has taken that into account and is planning for the increased demand for legal advice services. If he has not, then clearly the structure of advice available will not work effectively in Northern Ireland. We need to know the scale of the preparations

that the Minister has made. There is also the matter of finance. As we know, many solicitors in England and Wales find legal advice financially unattractive. It would be useful to know what provision the Minister has made to make that problem less crucial in Northern Ireland.
That is an important matter, because if one puts alongside inadequate legal advice the provisions about the right to silence, one finds that advice at the police station becomes even more important for a suspect. I am sure that the Minister is aware that solicitors on the mainland may well offer advice by telephone. That is a special problem in Northern Ireland, where a solicitor may need to go to a police station to advise a client specifically about the implications in court of the right to silence.
Perhaps the Minister will outline the practical implications of omitting section 60 of PACE in England and Wales from the Northern Ireland legislation. Without legal aid for people at police stations, suspects may well find it impossible to get legal advice, without which PACE in Northern Ireland is of limited value. If suspects are denied that fundamental right, and the right to remain silent, we are in a serious situation. As I said earlier, the protection of civil liberties and the granting of necessary powers do not need to be mutually exclusive. If the fundamental principle of PACE Northern Ireland is not implemented by this legislation, at best it is legislation of limited value and at worst it is meaningless. That point must be addressed.
We wholeheartedly support the need for proper, sensible policing practices and the police must be supported in that respect. As it stands, the legislation will potentially damage rather than enhance the principle and prospect of bringing the police and the public closer together.

Mr. Ian Stewart: In the time that is available I shall endeavour to respond to as many as possible of the points made in the debate. Some hon. Members have asked specific and technical questions of some detail and I shall respond in writing if I do not have time fully to reply to them now.

Mr. William Ross: Not for the first time, the Minister is following a long catalogue of Ministers who have stood at the Dispatch Box during the years that I have been here and said, "I will write to the hon. Gentleman." When they do, they simply respond to the point that the recipient of the letter has made, even though the interest in the subject goes much wider. When the Minister sends a letter will he cover all the unanswered points made by all those who took part in the debate?

Mr. Stewart: That is an interesting comment and I shall consider it when reading the Official Report of the debate.
I was glad to hear the general welcome from the Opposition, from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and from other hon. Members for the order.
I have been asked about the time that the order has taken. Although the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was enacted in 1984, it was not until 1986 that it was fully introduced in practice. We followed that with a careful examination of the way in which the PACE proposals would fit into the legal system of Northern Ireland which,


although closely comparable with that of England and Wales, is not precisely the same and, therefore, had to be considered in detail. Then a year ago we published the draft order, with the explanatory document. We felt that it was right to allow proper time for consultation, especially as a number of technical questions of the sort asked tonight were raised. Then, without further delay, we introduced the order. I have asked the RUC, through the police authority, to implement the provisions of the order with effect from the beginning of next year, which I am assured will be possible. In the interim, we shall be publishing the draft code. There will be time for consultation on that, so that the formal code can be issued before the matter is fully implemented next year.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) mentioned resources. The introduction of PACE was taken into account in the setting of the finances for the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the current financial year, and the necessary training of the personnel involved, which for general purposes covers most of those in the RUC and those with specific responsibilities, will take place in the later months of the year. Those who are involved, such as custody officers and inspectors, will, under the terms of the order, have new responsibilities. Up to now, they have had responsibilities of a different sort under the existing arrangements. More formal and specific responsibilities are being laid upon them, but they are not necessarily extra. That is a change very much for the better. After being so fragmented, the provisions are now more organised and formal. Inspectors, sergeants and ordinary members of the RUC believe that it will be a more effective system and one which they will be glad and ready to operate.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) said that the balance was important. I am glad that she picked up that point, because it is necessary to see the order not only as setting out the formal powers of the police to be used in the circumstances that have been described, but to ensure that the rights of a suspect and of the individual are fully recognised.
We will, of course, want to monitor the progress of the provisions. I assure the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who made a number of specific points, and other hon. Members who have spoken, that we will certainly want to see how, in practice, the measures in the order are implemented.
I agree with the hon. Member for Redcar that there should be proper access to a lawyer for a suspect who wants it, although they do not all wish to have such access, by any means. Many of them believe that they can do better on their own. However, for those who wish to have access to a lawyer, the number of solicitors readily available in Northern Ireland is much greater than was the case in England and Wales when PACE was introduced. I shall consider carefully the points that the hon. Member for Redcar made about that. It is not that Northern Ireland does not need a statutory scheme and that England and Wales do. In England and Wales there were special difficulties and, without legal aid provisions, there was a problem regarding ready access to a pool of solicitors. For that reason special provisions were made.
The hon. Member for Redcar also asked about the designation of police stations. I would expect one station in each division to be designated, perhaps more. The number of designated stations has not been settled at this stage, but obviously they must be available in all areas of the Province.
A number of hon. Members drew attention to the differences between the provisions of PACE for England and Wales and those of the order. The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), among others, touched on that. The overwhelming body of the order is almost exactly parallel to the legislation for England and Wales, apart from such technical matters as are required to adjust for the differences between the two jurisdictions.
There is room for a difference of opinion as to whether the televising of evidence from witnesses should be extended to those who may be in fear of intimidation. I accept that Opposition Members have doubts about that, and it will be for the courts and the judges to decide. We will try to ensure that, as far as possible, court room conditions are replicated.

Mr. McNamara: The Minister said that it will be for the courts to decide about the televising of evidence, but the order says that the regulations will be made by the Secretary of State. Who will do it—the Secretary of State or the courts?

Mr. Ian Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the extension of the televising arrangements to those outside Northern Ireland and those outside the United Kingdom. Those provisions are still some way off and there are no current proposals for their implementation.
I was referring to the extension of the televising of evidence—it was described as a dangerous extension—to those witnesses in fear. Unfortunately, intimidation in Northern Ireland is a prevalent factor that must be taken into account. We have engaged in widespread consultation and it is the clear view of the Government that it is right to make that extension in the case of Northern Ireland.
Other differences that have been mentioned are simply developments on the processes embodied in PACE. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East welcomed the extended power under part III of the order. That is an improvement on the position in England and Wales. The fact that reasons will not have to be given if they prejudice not only the particular investigation but other investigations offers a protection to the forces of law as suspects will not be alerted in ways that may make the proceedings in that or other cases difficult to follow up. Such developments represent an advance.
A different change relates to mouth swabs. The order describes them as non-intimate, whereas in the original PACE legislation they were described as intimate and therefore to be done only with the permission of the suspect. The main reason for the difference is that there has been significant improvement in DNA techniques since PACE. It is now possible to take swabs from the mouth, which can be of value for DNA purposes, without any great intrusion on the individual. They can be taken simply between the lip and the gum. It does not require force. The samples can be valuable, in comparison with other DNA evidence, as part of the case against suspects who may be guilty, or in establishing someone's innocence. That is an important part of the purpose behind the technique.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Is the Minister saying indirectly that the same legislation will be introduced in England and Wales?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will have to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about that. When we considered the DNA provisions in the order for our purposes in the light of present scientific knowledge, we concluded that mouth swabs did not involve scraping or unwarranted intrusion into intimate orifices of the body and could be done simply and in a matter of seconds from between the lip and the gum and prove of value.
I do not have responsibility for these provisions in England and Wales, and I do not know when they will next be reviewed, but the same provisions may have been made in the original legislation—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Clergy (Ordination)

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
That the Clergy (Ordination) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
This is one of those occasions when the House is called upon to manifest the characteristics of a monastic order, rising to attend to spiritual exercises in the small hours. I congratulate the many colleagues here who have risen to the occasion. I am quite certain that they will receive a reward, although from a loftier source than the Patronage Secretary and the Whips.
The scope of the Measure is, in its narrow sense, quite limited and not very complicated, although the drafting of these Measures always looks a bit bewildering. Nor in any material sense is it very far-reaching. It will impinge directly on a comparatively small number of people, as I hope to show, but it has profound and much more far-reaching non-material implications, in that it deals with issues related to the nature and indissolubility of marriage ties. These are matters which are likely to be of considerable interest to millions of families and individuals, including many non-Anglicans.
In 1986, the latest year for which there are statistics, of the 348,000 registered marriages in England and Wales, well over half were solemnised in religious ceremonies, and one third of them were in Church of England ceremonies. A majority of the public thus still regard marriage as having important religious implications. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.".]
I shall explain the strict scope of the Measure before I consider wider and more controversial matters. Under existing canon law, there is an absolute bar against a man seeking ordination as a clergyman of the Church of England if he is married but has a previous spouse still living from an earlier marriage or if the partner to whom he is married has a previous partner living from an earlier marriage.
I stress that the issue is not one of divorce alone. Divorce on its own is no bar in principle to a man seeking ordination as a clergyman in the Church of England, although in practice the circumstances of his divorce will be carefully scrutinised by selectors before he is recommended for ordination. It is only remarriage after divorce in the circumstances which I have described—of a previous spouse surviving—which activates the total bar to ordination.
The reason derives from the fundamental teaching of the New Testament, not only about divorce but about remarriage following divorce. The barrier I have referred to is at present absolute. It is provided for in section 9 of the Clergy (Ordination and Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1964, and neither a diocesan bishop nor either archbishop has any discretion to set it aside.
What is proposed in the Measure before the House is not that the absolute barrier of the earlier section 9 be abrogated or rescinded, but that under certain defined circumstances its full rigour should be capable of being waived or suspended, and that, at the final and sole discretion of one of the two archbishops, some exceptions to the rule should be allowed. This is a freehand summary


of what is provided for in section 1 of the measure. To present it in this way is not, I assure the House, a resort to weasel words or to mere casuistry or sophistry. This is not a back-door way of quietly plundering the old prohibition, while leaving it overtly intact.
If I may draw upon an analogy to make the point: it did not detract from, or impair the operation of, the law relating to capital punishment, in a bygone age when that penalty was still on the statute book, if the Home Secretary of the day recommended a reprieve in a particular instance, and Her Majesty exercised the royal prerogative of mercy. Indeed, if anything, the occasional reprieve served only to emphasise the mainstream rigour of the law.
Nothing more far-reaching is being sought in the case of this Measure than a discretion for mercy, while leaving the hard core disqualification firmly on the statute book. The Archbishop of Canterbury has estimated that four or five cases per diocese may seek the dispensation—say, 240 altogether—and by no means all that number would secure it.
There are some individual cases in respect of which it would be the merest and crudest legalism not to be able to waive the absolute barrier against ordination. The Bishop of Guildford in another place cited one such case in which the potential candidate for ordination married a divorcee 15 years ago. His wife's first marriage was never consummated. When she had wanted the marriage dissolved, the lawyers advised her that it might be more straightforward to obtain a divorce than to seek a decree of nullity, so she took their advice and obtained a divorce. The man concerned is now married to a divorcee and automatically disbarred by law from consideration for ordination. Had his wife been advised differently by her lawyers she might have obtained a decree of nullity and her present husband would have faced no impediment to ordination.
Having considered this case, many right hon. and hon. Members attending this debate may feel that the case for allowing occasional exceptions to a solidly entrenched rule is almost self-evidently made, and that the Measure should be allowed to go through without hindrance. Alas, not all cases are as easy and straightforward as that.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What would happen if the person whom the lady was marrying was already an ordained minister?

Mr. Alison: There would be no moral turpitude in the marriage between the ordained clergyman and the lady concerned, and there would be no basis for any ecclesiastical proceedings against him.
The objections arising from more complicated cases are, as right hon. and hon. Members will find, forcefully and succinctly set out in paragraph 5 of the Ecclesiastical Committee's report, the so-called red book, which right hon. and hon. Members will already have seen. The last of the listed objections in paragraph 5(iv) on page 3 relates to the absence from the Measure of criteria specifying the basis on which the discretion will be exercised. This has been satisfactorily dealt with, technically at least, by the provision, among the papers available in the Vote Office, of the Archbishop of Canterbury's statement about the criteria that the archbishops will use in exercising their occasional dispensation. In considering these criteria, an

individual who successfully secures the archbishops' dispensation is not thereby guaranteed automatic access to ordination. He merely ensures access to the normal selection procedure, and he may fall at that hurdle.
The third of the four objections, contrasting the dispensation to divorced lay people on remarriage in church with that proposed for divorced ordinands, looks at first sight a little far-fetched, in that like is not being compared with like. As the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out in another place, the difficulty about divorced lay people being remarried in church is that each wedding service is meant to be a testimony to, and a proclamation of, the Christian doctrine of the indissolubility of, and the life-long commitment involved in, marriage, so that a second wedding proclamation, involving a divorcee, constitutes a glaring contradiction.
However, this Measure is concerned with ordination and not marriage, and the same contradiction is not implicit in the proposal to make exceptions for ordinands that are not strictly authorised for lay people seeking remarriage. However, at a deeper level, the third objection in the red book underpins and illuminates two objections, which address themselves to the necessity to give clear signals and to maintain standards, not excluding ideal standards.
Vital landmarks in our social life nationally are today in danger of being swept away by the swirling secular currents of casually contracted marriages and easy divorce. The objectors argue that the Church of England should stand against these currents, at whatever cost. It is almost as severe a contradiction as remarriage in church by divorced lay people when the incumbent solemnising the marriage of a young couple bids them pledge themselves to a view of, and a commitment to, a life-long partnership that he himself has already abrogated. That is why I confess that, had I been a member of the General Synod in 1987 when this Measure was voted on, I would have voted against it, on the grounds that the times were not propitious for sending out this signal about marriage, however meritorious the signal might be in itself. As I shall explain, I do not persist in that opposition now.
One further difficulty inherent in the Measure, which was considered at length by the Ecclesiastical Committee, is the manifest imbalance in the treatment at present applying to lay ordinands and that applying to ordained clergymen. For ordinands, there is the present absolute barrier against remarried divorcés being ordained which I have described. For a clergyman, divorce and remarriage do not in themselves and in principle constitute grounds for his being removed from his office or his living. He can be so removed by existing disciplinary procedures, but for that to occur there has to be some moral turpitude in his case in the divorce proceedings. Where divorce is secured on the modern ground of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, no moral turpitude need, by definition, occur.
The lot of the existing clergy is undoubtedly easier than the lot of the prospective clergy. The conclusion to be drawn from this imbalance will depend upon one's predispositions. Some will argue that the imbalance in favour of the existing clergy helps to make the case for occasional dispensation for prospective clergy. Others will argue that the real need is for a measure to make more rigorous procedures available to disbar existing clergy who have marriage breakdowns.
The General Synod of the Church of England, after an extended and agonising debate on the issue, decided by a substantial majority that the course of occasional dispensation rather than enhanced rigour against existing clergy was the most acceptable way forward.

Mr. Ian Gow: Is my right hon. Friend able to confirm to the House that at the time of the clergy ordination Measure of 1964 those who were then the Archbishops of Canterbury and York were in favour of the measure, and that there has been a dramatic change of mind on the part of the two right reverend prelates who presently hold the two offices?

Mr. Alison: I shall remind my hon. Friend of the course of history since then. There was the report by the Bishop of Lichfield's committee, which was subsequent to the 1964 Measure, on the nature of marriage and the problems arising for the Church of England on whether remarriage should he allowed in church, and on the imbalance between ordinands and clergy, which I have described. I think that the report of the Lichfield committee was the key factor in changing the attitudes of the present leadership of the Church of England.
I hope that in presenting and expounding the case for the Measure I have not shown myself insensitive or unsympathetic to the misgivings expressed by the Ecclesiastical Committee and elsewhere by the minority who objected to the Measure. As I said earlier, I was potentially among its number. I now have no hesitation in fully commending the Measure to the House. I hope that the House will have concluded that the arguments for and against it are finely balanced, especially where an absolute bar would involve sheer legalism. That is reflected in the Ecclesiastical Committee's close vote.
At a deeper constitutional level, I suggest that the House has no proper or justifiable grounds whatever for preventing the Measure from going forward for Royal Assent. The concordat between Church and State, which governs our proceedings and which is based on the Church of England Assembly Powers Act 1919, fully delegates responsibility for deciding domestic Church issues, such as the basis for ordaining its clergy, to the Church of England and its domestic machinery.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Gummer): When Parliament so delegated its powers to the Church—I take my right hon. Friend's view strongly on this issue—did it not provide that, on matters as delicate and important as those that come before us, a two-thirds majority was necessary? Is it not true that in this instance the Church did not give an opportunity for a two-thirds majority? Indeed, there was not a two-thirds majority in the House of Laity, which this place should be concerned about. Is it not true that the very people who decided whether there should be a two-thirds majority were those who were proposing this measure in the first place? Could it not be argued that this House has an important role in insisting that the protection of the minority, which it put upon the Church, should be followed and cared for on a matter so serious and important?

Mr. Alison: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. In the interests of brevity, perhaps all I should say is that the General Synod considered thoroughly and in great detail whether the Measure qualified for the two-thirds majority provision that applies to matters of

fundamental doctrine and concluded, through its proper machinery, that it was not called for. The chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee, Lord Bridge—a distinguished Law Lord—on reading the constitution of the General Synod, concluded that it had properly decided that an absolute majority, not a two-thirds majority, was right.

Mr. Ray Whitney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that was not the conclusion reached by the noble Lord Denning, who took the view that there should he a two-thirds majority?

Mr. Alison: That is true. I have heard some comments that Lord Denning, in his speech in another place commending the opposite view, was not at his most pristine, forceful and exemplary best—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Did my right hon. Friend actually hear Lord Denning?

Mr. Alison: I carefully read what he had said.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I had the privilege of attending that House of Lords debate.

Mr. Alison: I very much wish that the mere audio experience of words were sufficient to make a deep impression upon the conscious mind. If that were so, dulcet tones would always win arguments. However., that is not always the reality in debate. Lord Denning 's speech was not of exemplary clarity and conviction.
The concordat between Church and state fully delegates responsibility for deciding these matters to the General Synod. As the Ecclesiastical Committee makes plain in paragraph 6 of its report, no wider implications arise which bear upon
the constitutional rights of all Her Majesty's subjects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton
(Mr. Latham), in his speech in the Ecclesiastical Committee, summed up the position succinctly. He said:
There are many Measures where it is absolutely right and in accordance with the constitutional rights of all Her Majesty's subjects (as section 3(3) says) that we should seek to have changed or sent back. Stipends of clergymen, rights of dismissal, pensions: all those are basic secular questions where our duty is clear, if the Church oversteps the reasonable grounds of equity. But this Measure is concerned solely with a matter of theology and I do not think it is my job to decide it is inexpedient to proceed.

Mr. Conal Gregory: My right hon. Friend has referred several times to the Ecclesiastical Committee of which I believe he was a member during the examination of this Measure. The voting was extremely close—10:9. Will he advise the House on why he did not participate in that final decision, which would then have balanced the voting?

Mr. Alison: If my hon. Friend had followed the earlier part of my speech, he would have heard me say that, had I been a member of the General Synod in 1987 when it voted definitively on this matter, I would have voted against it. I also hold the view that the argument is very finely balanced and that the Church of England, in a matter of theology and doctrine, has an absolute right, through the powers that we have deliberately delegated to it, to reach through its proper procedures a conclusion by a majority. Provided that the interests of none of Her Majesty's subjects is in any way threatened, it is reasonable for the Church of England to expect that Royal Assent will follow.
My own position was fully expressed in the words uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton in the Ecclesiastical Committee. After literally years of deliberation, the Church of England has passed the Measure—which received a substantial majority in all its houses—to us, and it is our duty to pass it, without impediment, to Her Majesty for Royal Assent.

Mr. Frank Field: It was worth waiting until 10 minutes past 2 o'clock this morning to hear the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) introduce the motion, because he showed a depth of humour that I did not think he possessed. If the right hon. Gentleman commended the Measure without any hesitation on his part, I only hope that I would be defended by him, if he thought that I was guilty.
When the right hon. Gentleman said that we are in a way debating our beliefs about marriage, a number of Conservative Members gave a very loud "Hear, hear!" Before we all become too self-righteous, I remind the House of one of its recent decisions. It reformed the divorce laws to make divorce possible after a period of marriage shorter than the term of the average hire purchase agreement. Before we ask the Church of England to set standards, we should consider our own conduct.
The most powerful argument to be made in this debate was forcefully put in an intervention in the Ecclesiastical Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Is it not unfair that priests who enjoy a freehold tenure can be divorced and remarry without losing their posts, whereas lay people who divorce and remarry are barred from ordination? If the argument were just about fairness, that imbalance should weigh heavily with the House.
I am reminded of a comment by Aneurin Bevan—if he did not make it, he would have done so had he thought of it—after Neville Chamberlain had introduced one of his many measures. Aneurin Bevan commented that listening to the Prime Minister was like a trip round Woolworth's—everything was in its place, and nothing was priced over sixpence. If one takes the view that in life everything has its place and nothing costs more than sixpence, my hon. Friend's intervention will carry weight. If one accepts that sometimes life is messy, and that in this instance, the freehold system should be defended because it is in itself important even though it is sometimes abused, one will not adopt the Woolworth view of life.
I hope that we shall not hear the argument this evening that the House has no right to intervene. My right hon. Friend—I call him that because in these matters, he is—almost made that point in his concluding remarks. He explained the balance of the arguments, commended the measure to the House, and said that it has no right to interfere. The House has every right to interfere until such time as it decides that certain matters need not come here from the General Synod for approval.
I hope that we shall not hear the disestablishment argument tonight. I voted against all the privatisation legislation that has come before the House and I shall continue to do so. I am against national institutions such

as the Church of England being handed over to the sect. We have a right to intervene, to judge and to weigh up—hence our debate tonight.
Let me underline a point made earlier in an intervention. On all major matters involving policy in the Church a two-thirds majority is required, but those gaining a ruling for such a majority must make an appeal to the people promoting the Measure: those who wish it to go through will decide whether a two-thirds majority is necessary. If we were debating not the Church but a building society, would we be happy for those who were changing—or rigging—the rules to decide that a simple
majority was all that was required, rather than a two-thirds majority? I think not. Had there been a two-thirds majority in every House of Synod, we would hear much of that point in tonight's debate.
Let me take the argument a step further, and ask how the measure will work in practice. We have duties in respect of our constituents. We should consider how Church authorities have already behaved to the House, through its Ecclesiastical Committee, before the Measure had gone through. The voting was fine: the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) reminded us that it went through on a majority of one, the Second Church Estates Commissioner not having voted on that occasion.
Whether or not we agreed with that decision, we in Committee wanted to know what were the rules governing who should be given such exemption. Then, too, we were given a taste of the humour that was dominant throughout the right hon. Gentleman's introductory remarks tonight: he compared the position with that of someone allowed not to be hanged. We suggested that there should not merely be an agreement between the archbishops, because archbishops change—and they could change the rules after they had come into force. We wished to see the rules in the form of regulation when the Measure was introduced, but we have not seen them in that form tonight.
The archbishops issued a note full of high-sounding phrases, but offering little guidance on who would get through and who would not. How will the rules work? When the Measure first came before the Ecclesiastical Committee, we were told that probably a couple of people would come forward for ordination. Then we started to get the letters—and then the archbishop told us that there were already nearly 200 on the stocks who might come forward. At least one bishop was so confident that we would rubber-stamp the measure that he sent someone through for ordination who could not possibly be ordained under the current law.
Let us make a comparison with the way in which the deserted wives of clergymen have been treated, and the assurances that they and their parishes have been given when acts of adultery have occurred. I am currently in correspondence with a clergy wife who was assured—as were the parish and the parochial church council—that the man would never again be given a living in the Church of England because of the way in which he had deserted his wife and four children and broken up another marriage. In one sense the bishops and archbishops have kept their word. He has not been offered another living; he has already had two. I suggest that once the move gets under way flexibility will be introduced. I see some of my hon. Friends here tonight. I have received many letters about the Measure, but not one from a deserted divorced clergy wife recommending the measure. I have had many from wives who have married divorced clergy.

Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend would not, would he?

Mr. Field: My hon. Friend says that I would not, but given the size of my postbag, people could have written to say that they disagreed with me. Many people write to me saying that they disagree with my line. Why should this Measure be the exception?
Before we discuss the rights of the wife of a person who wishes to be ordained, I hope that the House will have some respect for the rights and status of the woman who has been deserted by that person. Let me take the argument a stage further. This was not the whole Measure that went before Synod. The whole Measure was to change the Church's teaching on marriage. It stated that members of the laity who were divorced could be remarried in church. The Church, mindful of the fact that it should not give the laity rights that it denied to the clergy, decided that in those circumstances it would be proper for those who have been divorced and remarried and wish to be ordained to be able to do so.
The major part of the Measure which failed to get through Synod and has not been presented to us was that people who had divorced and remarried could get married in church. But the tail end of the Measure, which we are discussing tonight, was presented to Synod again and is now before the House. Far from the Synod not wishing the clergy to be inferior to the laity, we are now being asked to approve a Measure whereby some clergy would be in a superior position to the laity.
Another argument presented to me in letters is that good men with a wealth of experience about broken marriages to bring to the Church are putting themselves forward and the Church is short of manpower. If the Church is so worried about a shortage of manpower, why does it not accept that a large number of women wish to be priests and are not divorced and remarried? That would not require the overthrow of any doctrine. Why can the Church not bring that measure before us, if its reasoning is that such people have a vocation? If the Church is short of vocations, we should change one part of the rules which have always existed.
The right hon. Member for Selby introduced the Measure with extraordinary skill and great charity. The intervention by the hon. Member for York demonstrated his torn feelings about the issue. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's loyalty to the Church in presenting the Measure to us will not blind the House to the faults of the case that he presented. Should anyone say that if we do not pass the Measure tonight, we shall have a great constitutional crisis on our hands and the Church will call for disestablishment, I ask hon. Members to pause before they laugh. Would anyone really say that if we do not pass the Measure tonight the archbishops and bishops will go to the country on a programme that, because we were not mindful to pass a Measure to allow some divorced males who have remarried or married divorced women entry to the priesthood, we should allow disestablishment? The case would be laughed out of court.
We all know that no Government would find time for disestablishment. It would make trying to abolish the Greater London council appear a mere tea party because with disestablishment would come disendowment and those great constitutional issues would be taken on the Floor of the House. No Government would give up a year of parliamentary time to get that measure through, and

certainly not because we had decided early this morning that we were not happy, on balance, to pass a Measure that would allow some divorced people to become priests in the Church of England. I rest my case on a balance of arguments and I hope that the House will not approve the Measure.

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): First, I wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Second Church Estates Commissioner for the sensitive and balanced way in which he moved this difficult motion. I found his opening remarks illuminating and helpful. I regard the Measure as modest and sensible, and a proper way to take account of the wide range of individual circumstances involved in considering whether individuals are appropriate for ordination.
The safeguards announced by the Archbishop of Canterbury are real and proper. There is no question but that this is an exceptional power which will be used in exceptional circumstances. As my right hon. Friend the Estates Commissioner has made clear, the safeguards are enshrined in the fact that the dispensation is in the hands only of one or the other of the two archbishops.
It is also a compassionate Measure. It is in the experience of every hon. Member that in issues of divorce there are often cases in which one party is wholly blameless for the breakdown of a marriage. It is wrong, unreasonable and unduly harsh that such blameless persons should for the rest of their lives, if they subsequently remarry, be denied the opportunity of presenting themselves for ordination.
I wish to cite one case in my own constituency. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will be interested to know that it is the case of a woman who is currently undergoing training as a deacon but who, under the present rules, will not be eligible for ordination at the conclusion of her training. She asked for her name not to be disclosed, for understandable reasons, but she has given me permission to quote from her letter to me and it is instructive.
She wrote:
The reason for my not being ordained into Holy Orders, as I believe god has called me to be, is that I have re-married. In 1964, when I was nineteen I married, but the marriage lasted four months and was an horrific episode in my life. I was treated badly, beaten and left. A month later I discovered I was pregnant and nearly 7 months later gave birth to twins who did not survive the first day of their life. That marriage after many traumas was dissolved and I remarried my present husband in 1967. I am still married to him and have a lovely family. I have been a Christian since I was 8 and a church member apart for the few years in my late teens … In 1990 I will be at present only allowed to be licensed to be a Lay Minister and not ordained Deacon because of that teenage marriage that lasted only four months.
It is in such cases that it is reasonable and proper for individuals to be able to offer themselves for ordination. I believe that it is right that in individual cases account should be taken of the circumstances which precipated the divorce and that the positive factors about individuals presenting themselves for ordination should also be taken into account, regardless of whether they have been divorced and subsequently remarried. For those reasons, I support the measure.

Mr. Simon Hughes: When this matter came before the Ecclesiastical Committee of which I was a member, I started from the premise that I would oppose it for two reasons—first, because I had understood that remarriage after divorce was not countenanced in New Testament theology and should therefore clearly be proscribed for those who wished to be leaders of the Church, and secondly because of my experience as a member of a family in which this had been the theological issue which had most affected our view of family life. My parents were not allowed to marry in church because my father had been married before, and I had watched the only brother of mine who had been married go through a divorce. It troubled me greatly that this was a subject where theology had ultimately to win the argument against some of the arguments for compassion, but the principle had been held.
So I listened and, when it came to our conference with the Archbishops of York and Canterbury, I questioned the archbishops with some vigour about how they could justify, theologically, the case that they were asking us to adopt. They and their colleagues led me to believe that in theology the case is at least arguably justifiable. I say that not as a theologian or somebody who can be certain of what the Christian teaching would be, but as somebody who was driven for guidance to read the text in the New Testament, in the Gospels and in the Epistle to Timothy in particular, which deal with those matters. Although there is clear teaching about the responsibilities of leaders in the Church and about marriage, it would appear from those who interpret these matters and who are far more adept and able to do so than I am, that there can be a proper interpretation of the scriptures which suggests that permission both to remarry after divorce and to do so even if one is ordained as a minister of the Church, is theologically acceptable.

Mr. Gummer: If what the hon. Gentleman says is true—and, indeed, it is a position that some theologians uphold—would not the natural result be for the Church of England to seek to change its rules on marriage, not just for clergymen but for lay people? Is not the problem with this Measure that when the Church tried to do that, it had to have a two-thirds majority, and as it did not get a two-thirds majority it therefore withdrew the part dealing with the laity and left this tag-end? It then said that it did not need a two-thirds majority for that. When the Church—members of the Synod—appealed, they found that the group which was to decide whether the two-thirds majority was necessary or not was the very group presenting this Measure.
Surely the real issue facing us all is that in the sad case quoted to us by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), we are looking for a proper change in the Church's view and, in my view, for a better system of nullity—but not for this Measure, which must be damaging because it asks people to be allowed to be ordained but says that when they teach the Church's doctrine on marriage they have to teach that their own marriage is simply living in sin.

Mr. Hughes: I was intending to deal with that point later, but I will do so now. I believe that it would have been far preferable for the Church to bring before Parliament the question of the remarriage of divorced people in

Church before bringing this Measure. That is one of the unsatisfactory elements of the Measure. It will permit a more liberal regime to appear to apply to priests than to lay people in the Church. Divorced people who ask a priest if they can be married and are told that they cannot will find it somewhat odd, to say the least, if they discover that the priest who told them that they were not allowed to be married became a priest after having been divorced and having remarried. I accept that that is not satisfactory. Having weighed that argument with others that I will relate briefly in a moment, I still believe that the balance of view that we should reach in justice and in charity as politicians, and as people concerned with the standards of the Church, should persuade us to support the Measure.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): The hon. Gentleman is in danger of being led down a cul-de-sac by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). This not a question of where clergymen remarry. Many people—myself included—have remarried after a divorce. I was blessed in a church in a service that left it abundantly clear to the entire congregation that my wife and I had failed before and were asking God's blessing to succeed in future. That is far more germane to the question of whether the clergy or the laity can remarry in church.

Mr. Hughes: I will deal with that point in a moment as it is also an appropriate point.
We must decide whether the proposal is right according to theology, morals or ethics. We must also consider whether Members of Parliament have a right to intervene in this matter.
For as long as Parliament has the responsibility to approve matters that are put to us, we can, if we wish, disagree with the Church. I take that view even though I believe that the Church should be self-governing and should not have to come to Parliament. However, Church matters such as this come to Parliament under the present rules, constitution and practice. Clearly we have the right to say no to the proposal from the Church even though it is an internal Church matter.
What is the balance? I believe that the persuasive arguments against the proposal are theological arguments. But the Church and the theologians who advised us did not believe that they were determinative. I do not believe that those of us who have considered the matter would regard the theology as determinative either.
There is an argument that the Church should set clear standards and signals. However, I believe that that argument to oppose the Measure is impossible to sustain. If the present position continues, we say that someone who has been married and divorced and then remarries cannot become a priest, but someone who has lived with someone, or two people, three people or seven people can become a priest. Someone who has murdered can become a priest. Yet we reserve a bar to ordination uniquely for those people who have married, divorced and remarried. We do that irrespective of whether their previous marriage was a Christian marriage and irrespective of whether either or both parties were Christians when they were married or divorced.
We consider the previous marriage to be an absolute barrier to ordination even though it may have been a mistake, as in the example given by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). Even if the marriage was clearly wrong and had failed, and even if


someone found a vocation calling him to the priesthood in a blessed second marriage, the bar to ordination would apply. It is anomalous to preserve this unique bar and not to apply to ordained clergy the principles that we apply to people hoping to be ordained. A priest can be divorced and then remarry without any automatic threat to his role as a priest.
The most persuasive argument of all is that, if the theology is not persuasive and clear, and if justice is abundantly in favour of the Measure and strongly against preserving the anomaly of denying a group of people the fulfilment of their vocation, one other matter becomes abundantly clear. That matter relates to the mission of the Church and I hope that it is also the duty of the House. It is to realise that the Church must be able to forgive as well as to teach, that it has a duty, even to those in authority or who seek authority, to say that they are capable of error and capable of forgiveness and grace.
That is the fundamental issue which determines for me and for many others that justice and theology must come down in favour of the overriding principle that the Church should be capable—if it is thought right at the highest level and on the best advice—of saying that it can put aside and forgive a mistaken marriage. It should he able to say that it regards that as no absolute bar to someone who wishes to become an ordained member of the Church.
I hope that people will realise that this is a sensitive matter which does not easily allow the conclusion that it must be wrong to allow people who have been divorced and have remarried to become priests. It is not so simple as that, and I hope that we shall give to those people and to the Church the benefit of our necessary doubt.

Sir John Stokes: This is obviously a difficult matter for the House, but having listened to the debate, I have to say that the House has distinguished itself. On such non-partisan matters we express the wisdom of a great many lay people in England.
I should like to add a few general points to those that have been made. England, unfortunately, has an immensely high divorce rate. About one third of marriages end in that way and that is the background against which we are discussing the Measure. There is also the question of the standards that the nation expects of its clergy. It is possible that hon. Members, who are more down to earth than some other people, expect a somewhat higher standard from our clergy than does the Synod. I have been a member of the Synod for four years, and I think that hon. Members represent the man and woman in the pew rather more accurately than does the Synod.
What worries me about the Measure is that if it is passed it will send out from the House a wrong or at least a confusing signal to people in England who look to the Church and the clergy to set high standards at this difficult time in our social life. I am also troubled by another matter which has not so far been discussed. I refer to the Measures that have come to the House from the Synod in recent years. They are all extremist, liberal Measures, and in time they may utterly destroy the fabric of the Church of England.
First, as many hon. Members may remember, we had the virtual destruction of the Book of Common Prayer on which the Church is based and its replacement by the alternative service book. That was done by the Church of

England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974. We were assured then that the prayer book would not disappear, but it is disappearing very fast. Then we had the revolutionary proposal to ordain women as priests and because of that the Church is in danger of splitting in two.
Now we have this Measure. Later, this Measure may be followed by one to introduce so-called non-sexist language in the alternative service book and other books of the Church which would upset the vast majority of Church people and only please a fanatical minority of feminists. In the turbid debate about those depressed women, I ask what the Cabinet feels about them—but there we are.
In view of the disruptive Measures, which I believe will be put before us, we must study each one carefully. All of us have sympathy for clergy and others with marital troubles. The difficulty is that, once one starts to relax standards, there is no knowing where one will end up. I believe that in this country there is a mood against the permissiveness of the 1960s and 1970s anti, in my experience, young people especially are looking to the Church for a lead. What sort of a lead does this Measure provide? If the Synod does not feel able to give a better lead than this, hon. Members, with all modesty, should decide not to pass the Measure and to maintain Christian standards in their entirety.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I have listened with the utmost care to the debate and have been impressed by what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, although I am supporting the Measure. I have been impressed because I am not a member of the General Synod or of the Ecclesiastical Committee—I do not suppose that I ever will be—and I am sometimes confused by the language that is used. I shall therefore make my contribution in the simplest possible lay language.
I want to make two points. First, as has been said, the General Synod of the Church of England has deliberated and—as the right hon. Member for Selby, (Mr. Alison) said—agonised for a long time about this and many other matters. I understand the point that was made—that it is part of a package but it is before us, and we must make a decision.
The General Synod is the parliament of the Church of England. Its members are experienced, dedicated and distinguished theologians, which I and many right hon. and hon. Members in the House are not. The Synod came to its conclusion and supported the Measure, albeit, I accept, not by a two-thirds majority. It had a two-thirds majority in the House of Bishops and in the House of Clergy, but a majority of only 59 per cent. in the House of Laity, which has been a cause of some concern. It is to me, however, a substantial majority by any standards.
I do not believe that it should be the role of this Parliament—the Parliament of the people—however deeply some individuals may feel about the issue, to overturn the expressed view of the parliament of the Church of England. It is true that we are not disestablished, and I am not in any sense arguing for disestablishment, but our role is to consider the Measure. However, I believe that, once the Synod has come to a conclusion, both Houses of Parliament—the House of Lords and the House of Commons—should acquiesce in that decision and let it pass. We would be wrong to use our


superior powers—superior in the sense that we have the power to destroy this Measure—and to use our heavy hand to frustrate the Measure.
My second point relates to the principle of the Measure, which I believe enacts a basic social justice. I have read the ecclesiastical report and I have read the Lords Hansard as well as some other documents that I have been able to find. I understand that the objection of many right hon. and hon. Members is based on the idea that marriage is something that cannot be dissolved, and that therefore remarriage is a sin. Those who have been divorced or are now married to a partner who has been divorced are considered to have committed a sin by remarrying.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has said that that argument does not apply to priests. As I understand it, a priest is not barred from marrying or remarrying a divorced person and then sanctifying the marriage of other people. Tonight, however, we are deliberating on whether people who are not priests but who wish to be ordained should have that same privilege.
The Measure specifically relates to giving a few mature people who have valuable and much-needed skills and wisdom to offer, but who have been divorced and whose partner is still alive, or who is now married to a divorcee, to be ordained. Such people can be ordained only after each case has been considered by the diocesan bishop and reported to the archbishop. The person who wants to be ordained does not have an easy passage. To allow that person to be ordained would not mean that the floodgates would be opened. It would mean that there would be a tiny chink in the dyke through which might flow some good people with wisdom. The Church would benefit if it allowed that chink to be opened.
I do not believe that the Measure threatens the sanctity of marriage. Many people have a break in their marriage because of the death of their spouse. We do not say that they should not be allowed to remarry. We accept that that death is a sad occasion and often we are pleased when friends or relatives remarry some years later and find happiness with a second partner.
Many others suffer a break in marriage because, after trying hard, they find that it is not a marriage. They have to seek a divorce for the sake of their life and that of their partner, and the happiness of their children.
The House may know that I take a close interest in domestic violence and the problems associated with it. Over the years, I have been in contact with women who have been the subject of violence. Hon. Members may speak about the ease with which one can seek a divorce, but I beg them to believe that it is not easy. Women who sue for divorce after a violent marriage and who have fled the home do not do so lightly. Many return to the marital home after they have been beaten up because they want to keep the family together. If they seek a divorce, then make a clean break and remarry and their new partner wants to be ordained, should that person be prevented from doing so? That is what would happen.

Mr. Frank Field: The House is with my hon. Friend, but what of the person who does the beating?

Ms. Richardson: Good question. I always wonder, "What of the person who does the beating?"

Mr. Field: I intervened because there were two sides to the marriage that was being described—the person who was being beaten and the person who was doing the beating. My hon. Friend followed the line of the person who finally leaves that intolerable situation, and asked whether the person she marries should be disqualified from being a priest. I am suggesting that we know from divorced clergy wives who are given assurances that their husbands will not be given livings again that they are given more than one living. How can we be sure that it is not the beater, rather than the person who has been beaten, who is presented for ordination?

Ms. Richardson: I would have thought that my hon. Friend would trust the wisdom of the people who consider who is to be ordained. I do. As I said earlier, ordination for such people is not automatic.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady has said that the rigour with which the Church considers these applications is even greater than the rigour with which it considers people who remain priests but who have failed in their priesthood. The matter has to go to the bishop and then to the archbishop. Only when the application has been personally sanctioned will it be approved. Presumably a beater will not get through that system.

Ms. Richardson: That is the obvious point. I am a little surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) should rest his case so heavily on a letter that he may have had from a person who feels disadvantaged in the way he has described, because I do not think that such a person would get through such a complicated procedure.
Most ordinary people do not divorce lightly. It is a difficult and traumatic experience. We are not talking about the small fraction of the population, whom we read of in highly publicised stories, who marry, divorce and marry again, apparently on a whim. That is not what it is like for most people. Nor are we talking about all divorced people. It is worth quoting what the Archbishop of Canterbury said in one of his speeches to the joint conference of the Ecclesiastical Committee and the Legislative Committe:
On the number of candidates coming up, I have made inquiries diocese by diocese about this position. There are about 16 deaconesses who cannot become deacons because they married a divorced partner. Apart from this I am reliably informed that the total numbers—mark that—the total numbers known to bishops and their Directors of Ordinands, of people offering themselves who are caught by the present rules, are 183 men and 57 women, a total of 240. This amounts to just over four men per diocese and one woman.
I thought, when I first heard about the Measure, that umpteen people were waiting to be ordained. I now find that there are very few. It would be reprehensible if the House decided not to pass this very modest Measure.
I have always thought that the Church is about forgiveness and love, not about taking it out on people. It seems that, in some cases, people have had it taken out of them because they have been divorced or because they are married to a divorcee. I hope that Parliament will not frustrate what that other parliament, the General Synod of the Church of England, wants to pass. I hope that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will join me in the Lobby in support of it.

Mr. Michael Latham: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) and to take part briefly in this debate. The fact that the Benches are so full at this time of night shows the importance that hon. Members attach to the issue and the strength of feeling about it. That is all the more reason why it should have been debated at a reasonable time.
The subject has perplexed and attracted the attention of the House for well over a century. If hon. Members read the speeches made in 1857 on the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill, they will see that similar arguments were offered then about the sanctity of marriage. Mr. Gladstone, for example, whose speech covered 32 columns in Hansard—the second speech that he had made in a week on the subject—said:
Sir, I shall enter into the theological argument under protest. It is impossible to conduct it in this House as it should be conducted …That is a matter for the assembly of divines or a synod of theologians; it is not a discussion which can be entered into by a popular assembly."—[Official Report 31 July 1857; Vol. 147, c. 836.]
Being Mr. Gladstone, he then went on at considerable length to deal with the arguments for and against divorce. with what the Greek word "porneia" meant, and so on.
Many of my hon. Friends are troubled by this Measure. One of the most recent books published on this subject was written in 1984 by two distinguished evangelical theologians. The bibliography—it is described as selective—on the subject of divorce alone runs to 19 pages. This is a matter on which our Lord said relatively little and on which biblical interpretations differ. For instance, in the Old Testament, there were circumstances in which divorce was mandatory. They are to be found in Deuteronomy and elsewhere. Distinguished theologians have arrived at many different perceptions of the issue.
The Church of England holds the most rigorous position of all churches. After the Reformation, the Protestant churches tended to allow divorce and remarriage on the grounds of adultery, whereas the Catholic church forbade divorce, but permitted dispensations. Uniquely, the Church of England offered neither the Protestant concessions nor the Catholic dispensations. As a result, a large number of people who had the money promoted private Acts in the House for divorce. That was why the Act of 1857 was passed—to allow more general divorce. Exactly the same issues were anguished over at the time and all sorts of different perceptions were advanced. They are all to be found in Owen Chadwick's "The Victorian Church". The bishops in the House of Lords put forward all sorts of contradictory views on the rules and on the biblical teaching about divorce.
There is no black and white in this matter. Theologians, bishops, divines and churches differ on it. In the eastern Orthodox Church, second marriages are permitted in church and there are specific services for them. These are complicated matters on which Christian people can and do honourably disagree. As several hon. Members have said, they also affect real people seeking the grace of ordination, who have written to and been to see their Members of Parliament about the problem. The House has absolute rights over the matter, but if we decide to turn down the Measure, those people will be lawfully denied the grace of ordination that they seek—the right to test their vocation

against ordination, which could be extended to them only by the Archbishop of Canterbury or of York, and in no other circumstances.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) was good enough to quote me, I should make my position clear. Of course the House has the legal right to reject any Measure of the General Synod of the Church of England, and on occasion it has done so. When the Conservative party was in opposition, my right hon. and learned Friend the present Attorney-General, whom I welcome to the debate, was largely instrumental in correctly persuading the House to reject a Measure on a basically secular matter wherein the Synod and the Ecclesiastical Committee had not noticed that the clergy were given inadequate rights of appeal. The House did its duty and rejected that Measure, and it was right to do so.
This matter, however, is entirely theological and, although our rights continue, I ask my hon. Friends the following question: is it personally right for us? Do we have the ability or the skill to set our theological judgment above that of the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York?

Mr. Hugo Summerson: Yes.

Mr. Latham: Many others of my hon. Friends may think in the same way and, if so, they will vote in that way. I am simply saying that, if the bishops and archbishops of the Church of England, and the clergy—both of whose houses were substantially in favour of this Measure, and by well over two thirds—have debated and prayed to know the mind of Christ as they see it, then I will not set my theological judgment against theirs.

Mr. George Howarth: I came here tonight to fulfil an obligation to a constituent and had not planned to speak. However, after listening to the speeches, I felt that I had to make one or two points if I were to fulfil my obligation properly.
On most issues, I share common ground with my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and I hold him in great affection, but I found his arguments tonight uncharacteristically confusing. He said that, as the Measure is not the whole loaf, rather than vote for half of it, we should let it fall by the wayside. Later, he argued in principle against the Measure.
We heard the authentic voice of 19th century England as it survives into the 20th century—that of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes). His view typified the undercurrent of feeling among Tory Members which made me feel that it was necessary to intervene—that the Church of England is all about cream teas on the village green, and tut-tutting about goings on.
The Church of England has moved into the real world in recent years, and has addressed central issues. We are talking about real lives and real people and about those whose vocation may be tested by other means. They should not be tested purely on the basis of marital history. There are other more important tests. In many cases, real people have suffered anguish over the years while they have waited for the Measure to go through the procedures of the Church, and come to the House. It has now gone through those procedures, and it would be intolerable if Parliament were not to accept what the Church has considered carefully and decided was the right thing to do. The House should support the Measure.

Mr. William Powell: As the son of a clergyman who administered to congregations for 58 years, I know that he would find the suggestion that he has not existed in the real world extremely difficult to comprehend. The Church has administered to people of England for centuries, and not just in the past year or two.
It is with considerable regret that I must disagree with the conclusions reached by my hon. Friend and my constituent, the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). For reasons that have been substantially argued by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I must ask the House to join us in the No Lobby tonight.
A point that has not been underlined as it should is that this is the worst piece of legislation that has been introduced in the six years that I have been a Member of Parliament. It is so loose and general that it is a legislative disgrace. Even the members of the Ecclesiastical Committee who voted with the majority were less than enthusiastic about the quality of the legislation. There was an almost universal view that it should be accompanied by a statutory code of conduct, or at the least a draft statutory code setting out how it would be administered should be made available to Parliament before it came to a decision. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, a wide discretion is laid down in the Measure, and initially one or two individuals will be let through. It is extremely likely that every one of the 244 individuals currently in the pipeline—more are joining it all the time—will in due course be ordained.
The Church of England faces a crisis in the number of its ordained Ministers. A generation ago, there were about 20,000 beneficed clergymen. There are now about 10,000, and about 10 per cent. of ordained Mininsters, taking priests and deacons together, are women. That is how important the ordination of women has become in terms of the Church's ordained manpower. The Times predicted last week that within 15 or 20 years the number of ordained clergymen will decline to about 5,000. It has become of paramount importance to all the bishops of the Church of England to try to increase the number of candidates available for ordination. I suspect that the hon. Member for Birkenhead was spot on when he told us how the discretion was likely to operate in practice, on the basis of what has happened in the past. More than anything else, this is part of the numbers game that is played by increasingly desperate leaders of the Church of England as they trawl to try to find more and more people from a smaller and smaller pool to fill the vacancies that are appearing.
We all know from our constituency experience that there are long vacancies between incumbencies in small parishes and in large. These vacancies cause considerable damage to the fabric of church life within the parishes.
I must say that I consider the quality of this legislation to be a disgrace. The House would be entirely right in rejecting it because there is no code of conduct setting out how the Measure will be administered in practice. Without a code of conduct, we should not agree to the proposed legislation.

Mr. Alison: Even at this late hour, the sands of time continue to run out. I hope that I shall be allowed to reply to the debate, which must end in three or four minutes, by

making two quick points. First, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) that the details of how the archbishops propose to exercise their discretion and the instructions that they are proposing to issue in the diocese have been made available in the Vote Office and can be scrutinised. My hon. Friend may not have succeeded in procuring a copy of the relevant document.
Some right hon. and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government in an intervention, expressed continuing anxiety about whether the General Synod properly reached its majority conclusions without having recourse to the two-thirds majority voting procedure. I shall explain briefly the technicalities underlying the decision that a two-thirds decision was not applicable. Among other things, article 8 of the constitution of the General Synod applies
to a Measure or Canon providing for permanent changes in the services of Baptism or Holy Communion or in the Ordinal"—
that is, measures relating to ordination.
A special procedure applies
where there are permanent changes, and in those circumstances an article 8 measure, so-called, must have a two-thirds majority in each house of the General Synod at final approval.
In June 1986, immediately before the so-called revision stage in the full General Synod, more than 25 members petitioned that the Measure be designated as article 8 business—that is, statutorily requiring a two-thirds majority vote.
As required by the constitution—article 8(2)—the matter was considered by the two archbishops, the so-called prolocutors together with the chairman and vice-chairman of the House of Laity. They ruled that the Measure was not article 8 business and that it did not require a two-thirds majority on the ground that, in their opinion, the Measure
is not providing for a permanent change in the Ordinal.
That decision was constitutionally properly reached and was accepted in the Synod. Lord Bridge, the chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee, endorsed that decision. It was therefore right that the Church of England General Synod reached its conclusion without a two-thirds majority. I remind hon. Members that the voting in the House of Laity, the nearest group corresponding to us, was 125 in favour and 77 against.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business).

The House divided: Ayes 45, Noes 51.

Division No. 304]
[3.36 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beith, A. J.
Hardy, Peter


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Harris, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boswell, Tim
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bottomley, Peter
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Knapman, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Corbyn, Jeremy
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Couchman, James
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Cousins, Jim
Meale, Alan


Cryer, Bob
Michael, Alun


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)






Mitchell, Sir David
Thurnham, Peter


Nellist, Dave
Waller, Gary


Pike, Peter L.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Primarolo, Dawn
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Richardson, Jo



Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Michael Latham and Mr. Andrew Rowe.


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Stern, Michael





NOES


Amos, Alan
Lightbown, David


Arbuthnot, James
Lilley, Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Lord, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maclean, David


Benyon, W.
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bowis, John
Malins, Humfrey


Butterfill. John
Mans, Keith


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Miller, Sir Hal


Carrington, Matthew
Sackville, Hon Tom


Chapman, Sydney
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Chope, Christopher
Speed, Keith


Fallon, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Favell, Tony
Stevens, Lewis


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Stokes, Sir John


Finsberg. Sir Geoffrey
Summerson, Hugo


Gow, Ian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Gregory, Conal
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Watts, John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Whitney, Ray


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Widdecombe, Ann


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Winterton, Nicholas


Hunt, David (Wirral W)



Hunter, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Jessel, Toby
Mr. Alistair Burt and Mr. William Powell.


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine



Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

NHS Reform

Mr. Allen McKay: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the people of Mapplewell, Darton and north Gawber, who are themselves acting for those who are patients at the health centre in Mapplewell. The petition is signed by some 1,700 people, who ask the House to consider their views. They are, to say the least, extremely concerned and distressed about the Government's proposals for the National Health Service, particularly as they affect general practitioner services. On their behalf, I ask the House to accept the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Homeless Young People (London)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown]

Mr. Dave Nellist: Fifteen years ago, in my formative years as a young Socialist, one of the books that had a major effect on me was George Orwell's "Down and Out in Paris and London". In it Orwell describes the "spike", the place of last refuge for the homeless in the 1930s.
Today, in 1989–50 years after Orwell, after 10 years of Maggie's Britain and in the sixth or seventh consecutive year of successful economic growth, according to the Chancellor—the "spike" has been replaced by the "cardboard city" at Waterloo. There and elsewhere in the capital, surveys suggest that more than 3,000 people—a figure that has doubled in the past 18 months—are sleeping rough. Abject poverty among Rolls-Royces and five-star hotels makes a mockery of the words of the Secretary of State for Social Security on 11 May this year:
It is clear that people at all income levels now have substantially more money to spend in real terms than they did in the 1970s … not only are those with lower incomes not getting poorer, they are substantially better off than they have ever been before".
It is true that one section of society has benefited massively recently. Boardroom directors have received an average pay rise of 27 per cent.—faster than at any time this century. Among a dozen examples of the "I'm all right, Sir Jack" society is Sir David Scholey of the firm S. G. Warburg, who has just had a rise of take-home pay of 328 per cent.
In contrast, child benefit has been frozen and benefits for 16 and 17-year-olds axed completely, while the benefit rate for 18 to 24-year-olds is even less than the YTS rate, and at £27·50 is £7·50 less than the benefit received by those aged 25 and over. That impoverishes young people trying to live independently who, out of a pittance in benefit, have to pay water rates and 20 per cent. of general rates.
Those changes and others arrived in April 1988 and hammered millions of working-class people. They are the main contributing factors to the rise in young homeless people. Many families in Coventry lost £20 or more in housing benefit.
Under the old supplementary benefit system, young people were paid benefit in advance and therefore were able to pay for board-and-lodging accommodation immediately. In April 1988, that was changed to benefit paid fortnightly in arrears. It is impossible for many young people to get together the hundreds of pounds of advance rent and bond or surety required by many landlords. Their homelessness is directly Government-inspired.
Ten months ago, in September 1988, all 16 and 17-year-olds not on a YTS scheme lost all entitlement to income support. In the first three months of withdrawal of benefits—to conscript youngsters to the slave labour YTS scheme—only 1,269 discretionary severe hardship payments were accepted throughout the country, 215 of them in the London area. Thousands received nothing. A typical case was a 17-year-old Coventry lad, Terry Flowers, whom I mentioned in the House on December 5 last year, who, two months before his 18th birthday at Christmas 1988, was refused all benefit, although he had no chance of a


YTS place in competition with 16-year-olds who had two full years to give. He had no money for eight weeks and was advised by the DSS to try the Salvation Army.
In desperation, many youngsters come to London, hoping for work. After a few weeks they have little option other than begging, prostitution or both. They get little help from the harassed DSS officials. In 1979 there was an average of 50 cases per DSS worker; now, the figure is more than 80. In some London offices, it is no wonder that the annual staff turnover is more than 100 per cent.
Last Tuesday, the National Children's Home released a major piece of research by the NCH-run "young runaways" project. The director of social work at the NCH is Tom White, the former director of Coventry's social services. That report showed, in measured words, that
there is remarkably little accommodation and support made available to vulnerable young homeless people by Housing Authorities in Great Britain today … The safety net for young vulnerable people, embodied in the homelessness legislation is, apparently, no longer intact.
Eighty-five per cent. of housing authorities responded to that survey, which was conducted in the summer of 1987.
Young people at risk of sexual or financial exploitation, like hundreds now being prosecuted throughout London for vagrancy, are specified in homelessness legislation guidelines as eligible for housing. Yet one in five housing authorities said that a girl under 18 open to sexual and financial exploitation was not vulnerable, and half the authorities would not deem as vulnerable a young homeless care leaver, a young homeless person with no parents and no support, or a young homeless person under a probation order. Many of them explained that the shortage of council housing for homeless families meant that, no matter what the risk, young, single homeless people did not get a look in.
The NCH report concludes that 10 years ago, most young single people in housing need had a range of options, but today there is almost a complete absence of permanent and decent low-cost accommodation. Recent laws, such as the Housing Act 1988 and the Local Government Housing Bill, coupled with the draconian effects of the poll tax, will exacerbate that position. The report castigates the Government's social security cuts, especially as they affect young people. In that it backs up last year's Barnardo's report and more recent reports such as "Farewell to Welfare" by the West Midlands Welfare Rights Agency.
In September 1987, the Children's Society estimated the number of young people who go missing each year. It wrote in a report:
Young people on the streets with nowhere to sleep, especially in the West End of London or other inner city areas, are clearly vulnerable and at risk. Many have left home because of family tensions aggravated by overcrowded housing, poverty, unemployment, or physical or sexual abuse. They are usually lonely, frightened, cold and penniless and often exposed to sexual exploitation, petty crimes and drug misuse. In 1986, the Children's Society contacted all the chief police officers in the United Kingdom to try to estimate the size of the problem of missing and runaway children and young people. The nearest estimate, based on responses from half the police forces, was that 75,000–85,000 young people go missing every year … Many will survive by sleeping rough in alleyways, doorways or abandoned cars".
As if that was not enough, we learn from leaks in The Times today of further financial harassment of the young

homeless by a Government plan to restrict the payment of housing benefit to people living in their home area. The Department of Environment plan will discourage people from flocking to the big cities and is already causing difficulties and differences within the Cabinet, we hear. The Treasury is keen on the move, as it would reduce the rising bed-and-breakfast costs faced by councils putting up homeless families. Not surprisingly, it has the backing of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Prime Minister, who see it as a way of reducing the growing number of the homeless in London itself.
Added to that financial harassment, there is the existing physical harassment against homeless young people through sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. It is one of the most archaic and arcane pieces of legislation still on the statute book. It speaks of the "idle and disorderly", of "rogues and vagabonds" and of "incorrigible rogues". According to Lionel Rose's book, section 4 was aimed at
the suspect characters the law could not pin specific crimes on but who were apparently up to no good".
He gives as examples:
'Every suspected person or reputed thief frequenting dock areas or public highways 'with intent to commit a felony'; and those who 'wandered abroad' (that is, slept out) without visible means of subsistence and unable to give a good account of themselves.
Rose goes on to explain:
The Act continued the principle from earlier statutes of presuming the guilt of Section 4 defendants from their conduct, and the onus was on them to explain themselves; this runs counter to the general presumption of innocence in British criminal prosecution.
The Act has since been variously described as
simply a measure of repression
and "purely coercive." That is certainly its role today. thousands of youngsters attracted to the big cities like London in a desperate search for work, or forced to leave home because of the breakdown of relationships with parents, are now found homeless. Estimates were given today in the Lords of 150,000 homeless teenagers in this so-called modern, affluent country, with one third of that number—a staggering 50,000—in London itself, without decent, clean, permanent and cheap accommodation—without, in fact, a home.
One example of that was a girl of 17 interviewed on the BBC television programme "On the Record" on 19 February 1989. Her name was Ris Williams. She spoke of leaving home a year and a half ago when she was coming up for 16, how she had been in care for about a year and how she had tried to go back to her mother's, stayed for two or three weeks, but left again having been abused by her father. She had been on the street ever since, begging because her benefit was stopped in December; and, because it was illegal, she had been nicked for it loads of times and got a £10 fine. She had to beg the money to pay off the fine and then got nicked begging the money to pay off the fine. She said:
it's just catch 22—a vicious circle.
The available statistics on prosecutions under sections 3 and 4 of the 1824 Act seem very low. The latest figures relate to 1987, despite my parliamentary questions in the past three months seeking more recent statistics. The figures show that, in 1987, 466 people in England and Wales were prosecuted for begging, of which 416—that is, 89 per cent.—were in London alone. The figure for those prosecuted for sleeping out in England and Wales was 14.
I believe that the closest magistrates court to the House


of Commons is at Horseferry road, a few hundred yards away. In 1987, 55 people were prosecuted for there begging and 53 were found guilty. That was in the year before the social security changes. The figure for Horseferry road magistrates court was about one conviction a week. When I spoke as recently as five or six hours ago to barristers and solicitors who have worked recently at Horseferry road, they talked about an explosion of that offence from one a week to it not being unusual for four or five youngsters to be seen in a single morning, and to be fined £10 or a day in custody—which, in many cases, they are deemed to have served overnight in the police cells.
Their hunger has led to begging, but their crime is not begging; it is poverty. The escalating problem of young people wanting work and ending up sleeping rough and of the mentally ill or alcoholic being hounded by 19th-century coercive and repressive legislation is a disgrace.
The cost of a solicitor from the Crown prosecution service is almost £15 per hour. Use of a private solicitor costs between £85 and £150 for half a day. Does the Minister think it a good use of taxpayers' money for the Metropolitan police to arrest, detain and process such youngsters and for the Crown prosecution service to prosecute them? How much a year is it costing? Would it not be better to use that money to provide decent accommodation and decent benefits?
At the beginning of the 1980s, the Labour Member of Parliament Jock Stallard tried to introduce a Bill to abolish the begging and sleeping-out provisions of the Vagrancy Act. With the increasing scandal of its escalating use, the time is right, perhaps in the next Session, for a further attempt to be made. I believe that to that should be added the abolition of the restrictions preventing young people from registering on local authority housing lists and, indeed, for priority to be given to 16 to 18-year-olds.
There should also be provision for the control of the bed-and-breakfast hotels that are used by DSS claimants in order to prevent the profiteering of multiple occupation; for the immediate payment of board and lodging allowances, instead of payment in arrears as at present; for decent benefits for young people, without the disparity between the under-25s and the over-25s; for those benefits to be paid at two thirds of average earnings to allow people to live, not barely exist; and for a crash building programme, which I believe should include the municipalisation of corporately owned property.
The scandal of homelessness should be one of the easiest problems to solve. It requires planning and, in my view, public ownership and the planning of the economy, not the Government's use of market forces. Market forces create the Nicholas Hoogstratens of this world, for whom rising property values, especially in London, of 16 per cent. per year in the past eight years, have meant that the capital value of property, when sold and investested, is far more valuable than rents, especially with the abysmally low social benefits on which countless people cannot afford to pay those rents.
Socialist planning could bring the 3 million unemployed, together with the building and construction industry, into public partnership, through public ownership. It could reverse the past 10 years of decline, which have left us with more than 1 million homes in Britain unfit for human habitation and a further 500,000 without basic amenities such as toilets or hot water. It could reverse the 70 per cent. rise in housing waiting lists,

which now stand at over 1·25 million and it could reverse the three quarters fall in council house building.
It could also reverse the perverse slide of thousands of young people within a couple of miles of this Chamber, for whom the Catch 22 of no job means no home, and no permanent address means no job, who are drifting into crime, prostitution and drug abuse, who are being arrested, charged and sentenced under Dickensian poor laws, and who are building up a string of convictions which makes the chance of a prospective employer looking favourably upon them virtually impossible.
Those are the casualties of this Tory Government's slashing of benefits and of beneficial public spending. They are the victims of capitalism at its most obscene.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman have the agreement of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and of the Minister to intervene?

Mr. Corbyn: I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) for allowing me a few minutes of his debate, for succeeding in getting this debate and for putting on the record our concern about homelessness in London and about the way in which the Vagrancy Act 1824 is being used.
It is highly appropriate that we should be considering the Vagrancy Act 1824, because it was introduced in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars to criminalise homeless people—who were often thrown off land by illegal enclosures—who had moved to urban areas seeking work and a place to live. The Act gave the law enforcement authorities of the time enormous powers. That force and power is being used today against poor young people who, through no fault of their own, have nowhere to live. Anyone who travels around London or who lives in London—as I do—will believe that the situation is distressing and appalling.
Every day at Finsbury Park tube station, near where I live, there are many young people who busk and beg. They ask for the price of a cup of tea or for help to find bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I see many young people in those circumstances at my weekly constituency surgeries. They are very distressed that they cannot find anywhere to live in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East said that there are 50,000 homeless young people in London. I imagine that that figure is correct, if a little on the conservative side.
A combination of factors have led to this appalling situation. For example, over the past 10 years, there has been a net loss of 31,000 council-owned properties in London. Secondly, the rent in the private sector for a one-bedroomed flat in London is on average £65 a week, although in many inner parts of London the rents are much higher. In my constituency, it is barely possible to find a shared bedsit for less than £50 a week. Those figures are correct and the prices are rising very quickly.
Very few London borough housing authorities can house single young people. They must give priority to the elderly, who are deemed to be extremely vulnerable—as indeed they are. They must also give priority to single


parents who are also deemed to be vulnerable. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East referred to the problem with vulnerability which is a serious defect in the housing and homeless persons legislation. My hon. Friend referred to the research carried out by the National Children's Home, which has its head office in my constituency. We would all agree that the NCH is a reputable organisation which has done much work for the homeless.
The NCH research shows that over a fifth of the responding housing authorities said that a girl under 18 open to sexual and financial exploitation was not vulnerable. Half the responding housing authorities said that they would not deem as vulnerable a young person with no parents and no support. One in eight authorities said that they would. Over two fifths of responding authorities said that they would not consider as vulnerable a young person with serious family or relationship problems, while one fifth said that they would. There is a large area of discretion. From my experience as a councillor and now as a Member of Parliament in London for the past 15 years, the definitions in the homeless persons legislation have increasingly been drawn more narrowly, largely because of the inability of local authorities to build or buy on the open market. I deplore that.
Ten years ago, it was possible to get young people into hard-to-let accommodation. That is now impossible, and they are sleeping on the streets and are begging. In some parts of the country they are sad victims of the poll tax and of unemployment. They are also victims of broken homes and the lack of affordable housing in this capital city. Their tragedy is that they are criminalised through the use of the Vagrancy Act 1824; they are arrested, held in custody and subseqently fined. They are not criminals, they are victims.
The Government should repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824, as they repealed the sus laws after a strong campaign. They must recognise that the lives of young people are often blighted by their initial experience of moving to London—that magnetic urban area where they think that they can find work and somewhere to live. Even if they can get a job, they cannot find anywhere to live. If they cannot find anywhere to live, they often cannot find a job because they cannot quote an address. All the agencies dealing with the young, single and vulnerable report that they are at breaking point. The staff and the doors are at breaking point. The whole system is collapsing. We need action to resolve this crisis.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has raised an important issue, and in reply I intend to concentrate primarily on those issues for which the Home Office has the lead responsibility—the provisions of the Vagrancy Act 1824. It would be helpful if I first set out what the Act seeks to achieve.
Section 3 of the Act makes it an offence to be an unlicensed pedlar, a common prostitute behaving in a riotous or indecent manner or a beggar. The penalty on summary conviction is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
Section 4 of the Act makes it an offence for a person to be fortune-telling with intent to deceive, sleeping rough, indecently exposing himself, gathering alms by exposing wounds or deformities, collecting for charity under false pretences, found on private property for an unlawful purpose, or violently resisting arrest for an offence under section 3. For these offences, the penalty on summary conviction is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
The whole Act has been subject to scrutiny in the recent past. In 1976, a Home Office working party examined the whole issue of vagrancy and street offences. It recommended the abolition of two offences—street trading without a licence and being a common prostitute behaving in a riotous or indecent manner—but it recommended the retention of a begging offence based on persistence, because beggars can be a nuisance—and, of course, some people may feel intimidated by them—and because they are not necessarily as destitute as they may claim, so that there may be an element of falsehood in their demands.
Similarly, the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended in its third report in 1981 that the begging offence in the section of the Vagrancy Act to which I referred should be retained, at least for the time being. The Committee felt that the existence of the offence may well have helped to keep the problem of persistent begging within manageable proportions, but it expressed the hope that the wider availability of suitable accommodation would enable both the begging offence and the offence of sleeping rough under section 4 of the Act to be repealed within the foreseeable future.
Enforcing the Act is not an easy task for the police. The law itself is quite plain. It is an offence to sleep rough or to beg. It is also an offence to obstruct the highway, to be publicly drunk or to use illegal drugs, and the presence of any large group of people, some of whom are the worse for drink or drugs, may pose a threat to the peace. So the police cannot simply ignore these people and walk away.
Undoubtedly, the police apply the law sensibly. I am a little perplexed by the difference between the figures given by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East and figures that I have in front of me. I shall look further at the matter, because the discrepancy is considerable and I have difficulty in reconciling the figures. The figures that I have are confined to the Metropolitan police area. I am told that, in 1988, the Metropolitan police arrested only 15 people for begging and none at all for sleeping rough. They may have dealt with many more who went unrecorded, but generally their policy is to arrest only when there is some element of threatening or intimidating behaviour. I accept that the figures that I have given are not compatible with those given by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East. One of us must be wrong.

Mr. Nellist: My figures came form the Home Office annual statistics and were for 1987. My notes have now gone to the Official Report, but from memory there were 416 arrests under section 3 in the Metropolitan police area. It seems incredible, especially in view of the social security cuts, for the figure to fall as low as the figure that the Minister has given for the London area in 1988.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has said that the figures that he gave were for 1987. I accept his point that it is difficult to reconcile my figures with those given by the


hon. Gentleman. It is plain that I must look at the matter again, because we cannot both be right. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with my conclusions.
Whenever they can, the Metropolitan police put young people in touch with social services departments and voluntary agencies that may be able to help them, and they keep closely in touch with those agencies. They are also taking part in some projects that are being run by voluntary agencies to help homeless youngsters.
When we consider the broader question of young people and housing, we need to recognise that the youngsters who sleep rough in central London do so for a variety of reasons. No doubt many of them have missed their opportunities throughout life. Perhaps they have come from a broken family, have left school without the basic skills to equip themselves for work or perhaps they lack the self-discipline required to find and hold down a job. They may be unaware of the opportunities that exist for skills training and for financial support through the social security system. But if we are also honest with ourselves, we will recognise that there are others who are perfectly capable of finding work but who prefer for a variety of reasons to live rough.
The Government believe that, in general, the best place for young people to live is at home with their relatives—and 85 per cent. do so. At the same time, we accept that there are some 16 and 17-year-olds who, for a good reason, need to live independently and require extra help to do so. The range of benefits available means that those young people who genuinely cannot live at home have the wherewithal to find alternative accommodation, either as a private tenant or in board and lodging.
All 16 and 17-year-olds are guaranteed the offer of a place on the youth training scheme. Trainees are entitled both to the basic YTS allowance of £29·50 in the first year and £35 per week in the second, and housing benefit on top if they are living away.
From this month, those young people's entitlement to housing benefit is being increased so as to offset some of the everyday expenses, particularly travelling costs, associated with taking up a YTS place. Sixteen and 17-year-olds who are in work will also receive that extra help through housing benefit.
Also from this month, payments made by local authorities to help young people leaving care will be ignored when calculating income support and housing benefit. Young people who have no living parent or guardian, or who are in local housing authority care, or who are in danger of physical or sexual abuse at home receive income support, and associated housing benefit, during the period between leaving school and finding either a job or a YTS place. The Government have also decided that those eligible for that temporary income support entitlement will also include those youngsters whose relationship with their parents has irretrievably broken down.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has the power to direct that, in cases of unavoidably "severe hardship", income support will be made available to any young person who would not otherwise be eligible. All such claims are considered on their individual merits — between September 1988 and the end of March 1989, 65 per cent. of all such applications were accepted. Homeless young people who need to resort to night shelters will be automatically considered for a "severe hardship" direction.
Unsubstantiated estimates are that 2,000 young people sleep rough in London every night. Some of those youngsters could be accommodated in the hostel or resettlement unit places that the Government have provided in recent years. There are 4,000 emergency beds in London alone, but it is unfortunately the case that some of those who sleep rough are simply not prepared to use them as a step towards permanent accommodation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has given a high priority to remedying the problem of homelessness in England and Wales. More than £38 million in additional resources has recently been made available to those London boroughs with the most severe difficulties over homelessness.
That is expected to lead to the creation of well over 400 new hostel places and the reinstatement of more than:2,000 local authority and housing association dwellings. Last year, the Housing Corporation committed some £120 million to homelessness schemes administered by housing associations in and around London. It is an unfortunate fact that some of those local authorities in London which are most critical of central Government are also the least competent to manage their own housing stock. At the last count—April 1988—there were about 23,000 empty council houses in London, 9,000 of them empty for more than a year.
Right-to-buy receipts are not being fully exploited to bring back empty property into use. Too much time is being wasted by town councils before re-letting vacant flats and houses. In its recent study of homelessness, the Audit Commission estimated that, if the average re-let period for a council house could be reduced by six weeks in London, and three weeks elsewhere, an average of 17,700 empty dwellings would be released.
I am afraid, too, that London's rent arrears are unacceptably high. Nine inner-London boroughs—all-Labour controlled—plus Liverpool city council account together for nearly 40 per cent. Of the total municipal rent arrears —

The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eighteen minutes past Four o'clock.